BackgroundPatients diagnosed with haematologic malignancies (HMs) have a higher risk of developing subsequent solid tumours, such as melanoma. Patients with HM were mostly excluded from clinical...Show moreBackgroundPatients diagnosed with haematologic malignancies (HMs) have a higher risk of developing subsequent solid tumours, such as melanoma. Patients with HM were mostly excluded from clinical trials but potentially derive less benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to disease- or treatment-related T- or B-cell dysfunction.MethodsAll advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based treatment or targeted therapy between 2015 and 2021 were included from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Progression-free survival (PFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were analysed for patients with HM (HM+) and without HM (HM−). A cox model was used to account for confounders associated with PFS and MSS.ResultsIn total, 4638 advanced melanoma patients received first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 1763), ipilimumab-nivolumab (n = 800), or BRAF(/MEK) inhibitors (n = 2075). Concurrent HMs were present for 46 anti-PD1-treated patients, 11 ipilimumab-nivolumab-treated patients and 43 BRAF(/MEK)-inhibitor-treated patients. In anti-PD-1-treated patients, the median PFS was 2.8 months for HM+ and 9.9 months for HM− (p = 0.01). MSS was 41.2 months for HM+ and 58.1 months for HM− (p = 0.00086). In multivariable analysis, the presence of an HM was significantly associated with higher risk of melanoma progression (HRadj 1.62; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.15–2.29; p = 0.006) and melanoma-related death (HRadj 1.74; 95% CI 1.09–2.78; p = 0.020). Median PFS and MSS for first-line BRAF(/MEK-) inhibitor-treated HM+ and HM− patients were not significantly different.ConclusionsPatients with HM and advanced melanoma show significantly worse melanoma-related outcomes when treated with ICI, but not targeted therapy, compared to patients without HM. Clinicians should be aware of potentially altered effectiveness of ICI in patients with active HM. Show less
Background: The gut microbiome plays an important role in immune modulation. Specifically, presence or absence of certain gut bacterial taxa has been associated with better antitumor immune... Show moreBackground: The gut microbiome plays an important role in immune modulation. Specifically, presence or absence of certain gut bacterial taxa has been associated with better antitumor immune responses. Furthermore, in trials using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat melanoma patients unresponsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), complete responses (CR), partial responses (PR), and durable stable disease (SD) have been observed. However, the underlying mechanism determining which patients will or will not respond and what the optimal FMT composition is, has not been fully elucidated, and a discrepancy in microbial taxa associated with clinical response has been observed between studies. Furthermore, it is unknown whether a change in the microbiome itself, irrespective of its origin, or FMT from ICI responding donors, is required for reversion of ICI-unresponsiveness. To address this, we will transfer microbiota of either ICI responder or nonresponder metastatic melanoma patients via FMT. Methods: In this randomized, double-blinded phase Ib/IIa trial, 24 anti-PD1-refractory patients with advanced stage cutaneous melanoma will receive an FMT from either an ICI responding or nonresponding donor, while continuing anti-PD-1 treatment. Donors will be selected from patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. Two patients with a good response (& GE; 30% decrease according to RECIST 1.1 within the past 24 months) and two patients with progression (& GE; 20% increase according to RECIST 1.1 within the past 3 months) will be selected as ICI responding or nonresponding donors, respectively. The primary endpoint is clinical benefit (SD, PR or CR) at 12 weeks, confirmed on a CT scan at 16 weeks. The secondary endpoint is safety, defined as the occurrence of grade & GE; 3 toxicity. Exploratory endpoints are progression-free survival and changes in the gut microbiome, metabolome, and immune cells. Discussion: Transplanting fecal microbiota to restore the patients' perturbed microbiome has proven successful in several indications. However, less is known about the potential role of FMT to improve antitumor immune response. In this trial, we aim to investigate whether administration of FMT can reverse resistance to anti-PD-1 treatment in patients with advanced stage melanoma, and whether the ICI-responsiveness of the feces donor is associated with its effectiveness. Show less
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
Background: Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma can present with primary melanoma lesions, locally recurrent melanoma or in-transit metastases. Neoad-juvant ipilimumab plus... Show moreBackground: Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma can present with primary melanoma lesions, locally recurrent melanoma or in-transit metastases. Neoad-juvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates and an impressive relapse-free survival in patients with nodal macroscopic stage III melanoma. Whether primary site melanoma and in-transit metastases respond similarly to lymph node metastases with neoadjuvant immunotherapy is largely unknown. Such data would clarify whether surgical excision of these melanoma lesions should be performed before neoadjuvant therapy or whether it could be deferred and performed in conjunction with lymphadenectomy following neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Patients: Patients with synchronous clinical stage III melanoma were identified from the OpA-CIN, OpACIN-neo and PRADO neoadjuvant trials, where all patients were treated with ipi-limumab plus nivolumab. An additional case treated outside those clinical trials was included. Results: Seven patients were identified; six patients had a concordant response in primary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis and the lymph node metastases. One patient had concordant progression in both the primary and nodal tumour lesions and developed stage IV disease during neoadjuvant treatment, and thus, no resection was performed. Conclusion: Pathologic response following neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in pri-mary site melanoma lesions or in-transit metastasis is concordant with a response in the lymph node metastases, indicating that there may be no need to perform upfront surgery to these melanoma lesions prior to neoadjuvant treatment. (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 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
Kelderman, S.; Heemskerk, B.; Tinteren, H. van; Brom, R.R.H. van den; Hospers, G.A.P.; Eertwegh, A.J.M. van den; ... ; Blank, C.U. 2014
