Background: In phase III trials, ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination therapy is highly efficacious for advanced melanoma, despite many treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs). Here, we... Show moreBackground: In phase III trials, ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination therapy is highly efficacious for advanced melanoma, despite many treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs). Here, we report real-world safety and survival outcomes of ipilimumab plus nivolumab for advanced melanoma.Methods: Patients with advanced melanoma who received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab between 1-1-2015 and 30-6-2021 were selected from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We evaluated response status at 3, 6, 12,18, and 24 months. OS and PFS were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Separate analyses were performed for patients with or without brain metastases and for patients who met the inclusion criteria of the Checkmate-067 trial.Results: In total, 709 patients received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Three hundred sixty (50.7%) patients experienced grade 3-4 AEs with 211 of them (58.6%) patients requiring hospital admission. Median treatment duration was 42 days (IQR = 31-139). At 24-months, disease control was achieved in 37% of patients. Median PFS since the start of treatment was 6.6 months (95%CI: 5.3-8.7), and median OS was 28.7 months (95%CI: 20.7-42.2). CheckMate-067 trial-like patients had a 4-year OS of 50% (95%CI: 43-59). Among patients with no, asymptomatic or symptomatic brain metastases, the 4-year OS probabilities were 48% (95%CI: 41-55), 45% (95%CI: 35-57), and 36% (95%CI: 27-48).Conclusion: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab can achieve long-term survival in advanced melanoma patients in a real-world setting, including patients not represented in the CheckMate-067 trial. However, the proportion of patients with disease control in the real-world is lower compared to clinical trials. Show less
Simple Summary: BRAF/MEK therapy and anti-PD-1 therapy have shown better recurrence-free survival of stage III melanoma in patients with BRAF V600 mutations in clinical trials. However, little is... Show moreSimple Summary: BRAF/MEK therapy and anti-PD-1 therapy have shown better recurrence-free survival of stage III melanoma in patients with BRAF V600 mutations in clinical trials. However, little is known about how these therapies compare to each other in everyday practice. The aim of our study was to describe the toxicity and survival of patients treated with BRAF/MEK therapy and anti-PD-1 therapy in daily practice. We demonstrated that grade >= 3 toxicity occurred in 11.5% of patients and was the most common cause of early treatment discontinuation (71.1%). We also show that at 12 months, patients treated with BRAF/MEK therapy have less progression than those treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. However, this is no longer the case at 18 months. Adjuvant BRAF/MEK- and anti-PD-1 inhibition have significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to placebo in resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. However, data beyond the clinical trial setting are limited. This study describes the toxicity and survival of patients treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEK inhibitors and compares outcomes to adjuvant anti-PD-1. For this study, stage III BRAF V600 mutant cutaneous melanoma patients treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEK-inhibition or anti-PD-1 were identified from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. BRAF/MEK- and anti-PD-1-treated patients were matched based on propensity scores, and RFS at 12 and 18 months were estimated. Between 1 July 2018 and 31 December 2021, 717 patients were identified. Of these, 114 patients with complete records were treated with BRAF/MEK therapy and 532 with anti-PD-1. Comorbidities (p = 0.04) and geographical region (p < 0.01) were associated with treatment choice. In 45.6% of BRAF/MEK-treated patients, treatment was prematurely discontinued. Grade >= 3 toxicity occurred in 11.5% of patients and was the most common cause of early discontinuation (71.1%). At 12 and 18 months, RFS in BRAF/MEK-treated patients was 85% and 70%, compared to 68% and 68% in matched anti-PD-1-treated patients (p = 0.03). In conclusion, comorbidities and geographical region determine the choice of adjuvant treatment in patients with resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. With the currently limited follow-up, BRAF/MEK-treated patients have better RFS at 12 months than matched anti-PD-1-treated patients, but this difference is no longer observed at 18 months. Therefore, longer follow-up data are necessary to estimate long-term effectiveness. Show less
Kooij, M.K. van der; Joosse, A.; Suijkerbuijk, K.P.M.; Aarts, M.J.B.; Berkmortel, F.W.P.J. van den; Blank, C.U.; ... ; Kapiteijn, E. 2022
Treatment with targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors has significantly improved survival of patients with advanced melanoma. Unfortunately, a large proportion of patients are either... Show moreTreatment with targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors has significantly improved survival of patients with advanced melanoma. Unfortunately, a large proportion of patients are either primary non-responders or will eventually develop secondary resistance. In 2017, Nosrati and colleagues published a prediction scale in the British Journal of Cancer, which included five clinical parameters that were associated with lower response to anti-PD-1 treatment; female sex (1 point), age <65 years (1 point), history of ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) treatment (2 points), elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (1 point), and the presence of liver metastasis (2 points) [1]. This study used a derivation cohort of 228 patients treated in California, and a validation cohort of 87 patients treated in Switzerland. The primary outcome measure was best tumour response to treatment evaluated using computed tomography at 12 and 16 weeks after the first administration of anti-PD-1 monotherapy, and every 12 weeks thereafter. The aim of this correspondence is to validate the prediction scale, published by Nosrati and colleagues. Show less
BACKGROUND Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable... Show moreBACKGROUND Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable benefit. Phase 1-2 trials of adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have shown promising responses, but data from phase 3 trials are lacking to determine the role of TILs in treating advanced melanoma. METHODS In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive TIL or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 therapy (ipilimumab at 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). Infusion of at least 5x10(9) TILs was preceded by nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine) and followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS A total of 168 patients (86% with disease refractory to anti-programmed death 1 treatment) were assigned to receive TILs (84 patients) or ipilimumab (84 patients). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 13.1) in the TIL group and 3.1 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.3) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72; P < 0.001); 49% (95% CI, 38 to 60) and 21% (95% CI, 13 to 32) of the patients, respectively, had an objective response. Median overall survival was 25.8 months (95% CI, 18.2 to not reached) in the TIL group and 18.9 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 32.6) in the ipilimumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in all patients who received TILs and in 57% of those who received ipilimumab; in the TIL group, these events were mainly chemotherapy-related myelosuppression. CONCLUSIONS In patients with advanced melanoma, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received TIL therapy than among those who received ipilimumab. Show less
Ismail, R.K.; Suijkerbuijk, K.P.M.; Boer, A. de; Dartel, M. van; Hilarius, D.L.; Pasmooij, A.M.G.; ... ; Wouters, M.W.J.M. 2022
Recent results of patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors in clinical trials showed 5-year survival in one-third of patients with a median overall survival (OS)... Show moreRecent results of patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors in clinical trials showed 5-year survival in one-third of patients with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years. This study aimed to investigate these patients' real-world survival and identify the characteristics of long-term survivors. The study population consisted of patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma with a BRAF-V600 mutated tumor who were treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors between 2013 and 2017. Long-term survival was defined as a minimum OS of 2 years from start therapy. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) of real-world patients (n = 435) were respectively 8.0 (95% CI, 6.8-9.4) and 11.7 (95% CI, 10.3-13.5) months. Two-year survival was reached by 28% of the patients, 22% reached 3-year survival and 19% reached 4-year survival. Real-world patients often had brain metastases (41%), stage IV M1c disease (87%), ECOG PS >= 2 (21%), >= 3 organ sites (62%) and elevated LDH of >= 250 U/I (49%). Trial-eligible real-world patients had an mOS of 17.9 months. Patients surviving more than 2 years (n = 116) more often had an ECOG PS <= 1 (83%), normal LDH (60%), no brain metastases (60%), no liver metastases (63%) and <3 organ sites (60%). Long-term survival of real-world patients treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors is significantly lower than that of trial patients, which is probably explained by poorer baseline characteristics of patients treated in daily practice. Long-term survivors generally had more favorable characteristics with regard to age, LDH level and metastatic sites, compared to patients not reaching long-term survival. Show less
Blankenstein, S.A.; Bonenkamp, J.J.; Aarts, M.J.B.; Berkmortel, F.W.P.J. van den; Blank, C.U.; Blokx, W.A.M.; ... ; Akkooi, A.C.J. van 2022
IMPORTANCE: Management of checkpoint inhibitor-induced immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is primarily based on expert opinion. Recent studies have suggested detrimental effects of anti-tumor... Show moreIMPORTANCE: Management of checkpoint inhibitor-induced immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is primarily based on expert opinion. Recent studies have suggested detrimental effects of anti-tumor necrosis factor on checkpoint-inhibitor efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of toxic effect management with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab combination therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This population-based, multicenter cohort study included patients with advanced melanoma experiencing grade 3 and higher irAEs after treatment with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab between 2015 and 2021. Data were collected from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Median follow-up was 23.6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The PFS, OS, and MSS were analyzed according to toxic effect management regimen. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess factors associated with PFS and OS. RESULTS: Of 771 patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab, 350 patients (median [IQR] age, 60.0 [51.0-68.0] years; 206 [58.9%] male) were treated with immunosuppression for severe irAEs. Of these patients, 235 received steroids alone, and 115 received steroids with second-line immunosuppressants. Colitis and hepatitis were the most frequently reported types of toxic effects. Except for type of toxic effect, no statistically significant differences existed at baseline. Median PFS was statistically significantly longer for patients treated with steroids alone compared with patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (11.3 [95% CI, 9.6-19.6] months vs 5.4 [95% CI, 4.5-12.4] months; P=.01). Median OS was also statistically significantly longer for the group receiving steroids alone compared with those receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (46.1 months [95% CI, 39.0 months-not reached (NR)] vs 22.5 months [95% CI, 36.5 months-NR]; P=.04). Median MSS was also better in the group receiving steroids alone compared with the group receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (NR [95% CI, 46.1 months-NR] vs 28.8 months [95% CI, 20.5 months-NR]; P=.006). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants showed a trend toward a higher risk of progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00-1.97]; P=.05) and had a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.03-2.30]; P=.04) compared with those receiving steroids alone. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, second-line immunosuppression for irAEs was associated with impaired PFS, OS, and MSS in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab. These findings stress the importance of assessing the effects of differential irAE management strategies, not only in patients with melanoma but also tumor types. Show less
Blankenstein, S.A.; Bonenkamp, J.J.; Aarts, M.J.B.; Berkmortel, F.W.P.J. van den; Blank, C.U.; Blokx, W.A.M.; ... ; Akkooi, A.C.J. van 2022
Introduction: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is important for staging in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. Did having previously undergone SLNB also affect outcomes in patients once they... Show moreIntroduction: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is important for staging in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. Did having previously undergone SLNB also affect outcomes in patients once they have progressed to metastatic melanoma in the era prior to adjuvant therapy? Methods: Data were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, a prospectively collected, nationwide database of patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma between 2012 and 2018. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) was compared between patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma, previously treated with a wide local excision (WLE) or WLE combined with SLNB as initial treatment of their primary tumor. Cox regression analyses were used to analyze the influence of different variables on MSS. Results: In total, 2581 patients were included, of whom 1412 were treated with a WLE of the primary tumor alone and 1169 in whom this was combined with SLNB. At a median follow-up of 44 months from diagnosis of advanced melanoma, MSS was significantly longer in patients who had previously undergone SLNB {median 23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-29) vs. 18 months (95% CI 15-20) for patients treated with WLE alone; p = 0.002}. However, multivariate Cox regression did not identify SLNB as an independent favorable prognostic factor for MSS after diagnosis of advanced melanoma. Conclusion: Prior to the availability of adjuvant systemic therapy, once patients have unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma, there was no difference in disease outcome for patients who were or were not previously staged with SLNB. Show less
Breeschoten, J. van; Ismail, R.K.; Wouters, M.W.J.M.; Hilarius, D.L.; Wreede, L.C. de; Haanen, J.B.; ... ; Eertwegh, A.J.M. van den 2022
Background: Recent reports suggest the limited efficacy of immune checkpoints inhibitors in advanced acral melanoma (AM). This study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint... Show moreBackground: Recent reports suggest the limited efficacy of immune checkpoints inhibitors in advanced acral melanoma (AM). This study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with stage III and IV AM and compare them to cutaneous melanoma (CM). Methods: We included patients with advanced AM and CM treated with first-line anti -programmed cell death (PD)-1 monotherapy or ipilimumab-nivolumab registered in the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Objective response rates, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the prognostic factors with PFS and OS. Results: In total, 2058 patients (88 AM and 1970 CM) with advanced melanoma were included. First-line objective response rates were 34% for AM versus 54% for CM in the advanced anti-PD-1 cohort and 33% for AM versus 53% for CM in the advanced ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort. The Median PFS was significantly shorter for anti-PD-1 treated AM patients (3.1 months; 95%CI: 2.8-5.6) than patients with CM (10.1 months; 95%CI: 8.5-12.2) (P < 0.001). In patients with advanced melanoma, AM was significantly associated with a higher risk of progression (HRadj 1.63; 95%CI: 1.26-2.11 ; P < 0.001) and death (HRadj 1.54; 95%CI: 1.15-2.06; P Z 0.004) than CM. Conclusions: This study shows lower effectiveness of anti-PD-1 monotherapy and ipilimumab-nivolumab in AM, with lower response rates, PFS and OS than CM. This group of patients should be prioritised in the development of alternative treatment strategies. 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
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
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
Background: Checkpoint inhibitors have changed overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. However, there is a lack of data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of long-term advanced... Show moreBackground: Checkpoint inhibitors have changed overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. However, there is a lack of data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of long-term advanced melanoma survivors, years after treatment. Therefore, we evaluated HRQoL in long-term advanced melanoma survivors and compared the study outcomes with matched controls without cancer.Material and methods: Ipilimumab-treated advanced melanoma survivors without evidence of disease and without subsequent systemic therapy for a minimum of two years following last administration of ipilimumab were eligible for this study. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma questionnaire (FACT-M) were administered. Controls were individually matched for age, gender, and educational status. Outcomes of survivors and controls were compared using generalized estimating equations, and differences were interpreted as clinically relevant according to published guidelines.Results: A total of 89 survivors and 265 controls were analyzed in this study. After a median follow-up of 39 (range, 17-121) months, survivors scored significantly lower on physical (83.7vs. 89.8, difference (diff) = -5.80,p=.005), role (83.5vs.90, diff = -5.97,p=.02), cognitive (83.7vs.91.9, diff = -8.05,p=.001), and social functioning (86.5vs.95.1, diff = -8.49,p= <.001) and had a higher symptom burden of fatigue (23.0vs.15.5, diff = 7.48,p=.004), dyspnea (13.3vs.6.7, diff = 6.47p=.02), diarrhea (7.9vs.4.0, diff = 3.78,p=.04), and financial impact (10.5vs.2.5, diff = 8.07,p=.001) than matched controls. Group differences were indicated as clinically relevant.Discussion: Compared to matched controls, long-term advanced melanoma survivors had overall worse functioning scores, more physical symptoms, and financial difficulties. These data may contribute to the development of appropriate survivorship care. Show less
Kooij, M.K. van der; Wetzels, M.J.A.L.; Aarts, M.J.B.; Berkmortel, F.W.P.J. van den; Blank, C.U.; Boers-Sonderen, M.J.; ... ; Kapiteijn, E. 2020
Cutaneous melanoma is a common type of cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs, 15-39 years of age). However, AYAs are underrepresented in clinical trials investigating new therapies and the... Show moreCutaneous melanoma is a common type of cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs, 15-39 years of age). However, AYAs are underrepresented in clinical trials investigating new therapies and the outcomes from these therapies for AYAs are therefore unclear. Using prospectively collected nation-wide data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), we compared baseline characteristics, mutational profiles, treatment strategies, grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs), responses and outcomes in AYAs (n= 210) and older adults (n= 3775) who were diagnosed with advanced melanoma between July 2013 and July 2018. Compared to older adults, AYAs were more frequently female (51% versus 40%,p= 0.001), and had a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG 0 in 54% versus 45%,p= 0.004). BRAF and NRAS mutations were age dependent, with more BRAF V600 mutations in AYAs (68% versus 46%) and more NRAS mutations in older adults (13% versus 21%),p< 0.001. This finding translated in distinct first-line treatment patterns, where AYAs received more initial targeted therapy. Overall, grade 3-4 AE percentages following first-line systemic treatment were similar for AYAs and older adults; anti-PD-1 (7% versus 14%,p= 0.25), anti-CTLA-4 (16% versus 33%,p= 0.12), anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 (67% versus 56%,p= 0.34) and BRAF/MEK-inhibition (14% versus 23%,p= 0.06). Following anti-CTLA-4 treatment, no AYAs experienced a grade 3-4 colitis, while 17% of the older adults did (p= 0.046). There was no difference in response to treatment between AYAs and older adults. The longer overall survival observed in AYAs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) was explained by the increased cumulative incidence of non-melanoma related deaths in older adults (sub-distribution HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.5-4.9), calculated by competing risk analysis. The results of our national cohort study show that baseline characteristics and mutational profiles differ between AYAs and older adults with advanced melanoma, leading to different treatment choices made in daily practice. Once treatment is initiated, AYAs and older adults show similar tumor responses and melanoma-specific survival. Show less
Verheijden, R.J.; May, A.M.; Blank, C.U.; Aarts, M.J.B.; Berkmortel, F.W.P.J. van den; Eertwegh, A.J.M. van den; ... ; Suijkerbuijk, K.P.M. 2020
Purpose: Unleashing the immune system by PD-1 and/or CTLA-4 blockade can cause severe immune-related toxicity necessitating immunosuppressive treatment. Whether immunosuppression for toxicity... Show morePurpose: Unleashing the immune system by PD-1 and/or CTLA-4 blockade can cause severe immune-related toxicity necessitating immunosuppressive treatment. Whether immunosuppression for toxicity impacts survival is largely unknown.Experimental Design: Using data from the prospective nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), we analyzed the association between severe toxicity and overall survival (OS) in 1,250 patients with advanced melanoma who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in first line between 2012 and 2017. Furthermore, we analyzed whether toxicity management affected survival in these patients.Results: A total of 1,250 patients were included, of whom 589 received anti-PD1 monotherapy, 576 ipilimumab, and 85 combination therapy. A total of 312 patients (25%) developed severe (grade >= 3) toxicity. Patients experiencing severe ICI toxicity had a significantly prolonged survival with a median OS of 23 months compared with 15 months for patients without severe toxicity [hazard ratio (HRadj) = 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63-0.93]. Among patients experiencing severe toxicity, survival was significantly decreased in patients who received anti-TNF +/- steroids for steroid-refractory toxicity compared with patients whoweremanaged with steroids only (HRadj = 1.61; 95% CI, 1.03-2.51), with a median OS of 17 and 27 months, respectively.Conclusions: Patients experiencing severe ICI toxicity have a prolonged OS. However, this survival advantage is abrogated when anti- TNF is administered for steroid-refractory toxicity. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the effect of different immunosuppressive regimens on checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. Show less
