Predicting who will benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in patients with advanced melanoma is challenging. We developed a multivariable prediction model for response to... Show morePredicting who will benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in patients with advanced melanoma is challenging. We developed a multivariable prediction model for response to ICI, using routinely available clinical data including primary melanoma characteristics. We used a population-based cohort of 3525 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy. Our prediction model for predicting response within 6 months after ICI initiation was internally validated with bootstrap resampling. Performance evaluation included calibration, discrimination and internal-external cross-validation. Included patients received anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 2366) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 1159) in any treatment line. The model included serum lactate dehydrogenase, World Health Organization performance score, type and line of ICI, disease stage and time to first distant recurrence-all at start of ICI-, and location and type of primary melanoma, the presence of satellites and/or in-transit metastases at primary diagnosis and sex. The over-optimism adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64-0.66). The range of predicted response probabilities was 7%-81%. Based on these probabilities, patients were categorized into quartiles. Compared to the lowest response quartile, patients in the highest quartile had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (20.0 vs 2.8 months; P < .001) and median overall survival (62.0 vs 8.0 months; P < .001). Our prediction model, based on routinely available clinical variables and primary melanoma characteristics, predicts response to ICI in patients with advanced melanoma and discriminates well between treated patients with a very good and very poor prognosis. Show less
BackgroundEffectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking.MethodsData from all advanced melanoma patients treated... Show moreBackgroundEffectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking.MethodsData from all advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAFi(/MEKi) rechallenge were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The authors analyzed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both first treatment and rechallenge. They performed a multivariable logistic regression and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with response and survival.ResultsThe authors included 468 patients in the largest cohort to date who underwent at least two treatment episodes of BRAFi(/MEKi). Following rechallenge, ORR was 43%, median PFS was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1-5.2), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.4). Median PFS after rechallenge for patients who discontinued first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.0) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.9) for patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons. Discontinuing first treatment due to progression and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels greater than two times the upper limit of normal were associated with lower odds of response and worse PFS and OS. Symptomatic brain metastases were associated with worse survival, whereas a longer treatment interval between first treatment and rechallenge was associated with better survival. Responding to the first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment was not associated with response or survival.ConclusionsThis study confirms that patients benefit from rechallenge. Elevated LDH levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit from rechallenge. A prolonged treatment interval is associated with more benefit from rechallenge.This study confirms that patients with advanced melanoma derive benefit from rechallenge with BRAFi(/MEKi). Elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit on rechallenge. Show less
The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanomathat develop brain metastases (BM) remains unpredictable. In this study, we aimed to identifyprognostic factors... Show moreThe efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanomathat develop brain metastases (BM) remains unpredictable. In this study, we aimed to identifyprognostic factors in patients with melanoma BM who are treated with ICIs. Data from advancedmelanoma patients with BM treated with ICIs in any line between 2013 and 2020 were obtained fromthe Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were included from the time of the treatment ofBM with ICIs. Survival tree analysis was performed with clinicopathological parameters as potentialclassifiers and overall survival (OS) as the response variable. In total, 1278 patients were included.Most patients were treated with ipilimumab–nivolumab combination therapy (45%). The survivaltree analysis resulted in 31 subgroups. The median OS ranged from 2.7 months to 35.7 months. Thestrongest clinical parameter associated with survival in advanced melanoma patients with BM wasthe serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level. Patients with elevated LDH levels and symptomaticBM had the worst prognosis. The clinicopathological classifiers identified in this study can contributeto optimizing clinical studies and can aid doctors in giving an indication of the patients’ survivalbased on their baseline and disease characteristics. Show less
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
Since the introduction of BRAF(/MEK) inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), the prognosis of advanced melanoma has greatly improved. Melanoma is known for its remarkably long time to... Show moreSince the introduction of BRAF(/MEK) inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), the prognosis of advanced melanoma has greatly improved. Melanoma is known for its remarkably long time to first distant recurrence (TFDR), which can be decades in some patients and is partly attributed to immune-surveillance. We investigated the relationship between TFDR and patient outcomes after systemic treatment for advanced melanoma. We selected patients undergoing first-line systemic therapy for advanced melanoma from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The association between TFDR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed by Cox proportional hazard regression models. The TFDR was modeled categorically, linearly, and flexibly using restricted cubic splines. Patients received anti-PD-1-based treatment (n = 1844) or BRAF(/MEK) inhibition (n = 1618). For ICI-treated patients with a TFDR <2 years, median OS was 25.0 months, compared to 37.3 months for a TFDR >5 years (P = .014). Patients treated with BRAF(/MEK) inhibition with a longer TFDR also had a significantly longer median OS (8.6 months for TFDR <2 years compared to 11.1 months for >5 years, P = .004). The hazard of dying rapidly decreased with increasing TFDR until approximately 5 years (HR 0.87), after which the hazard of dying further decreased with increasing TFDR, but less strongly (HR 0.82 for a TFDR of 10 years and HR 0.79 for a TFDR of 15 years). Results were similar when stratifying for type of treatment. Advanced melanoma patients with longer TFDR have a prolonged PFS and OS, irrespective of being treated with first-line ICI or targeted therapy. Show less
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
PURPOSE: Little is known about the effect of specific gene mutations on efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with... Show morePURPOSE: Little is known about the effect of specific gene mutations on efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line anti-PD-1 or ipilimumab-nivolumab between 2012 and 2021 in the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were included in this cohort study. Objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed according to BRAF and NRAS status. A multivariable Cox model was used to analyze prognostic factors associated with PFS and OS. RESULTS: In total, 1764 patients received anti-PD-1 and 759 received ipilimumab-nivolumab. No significant differences in PFS were found in the anti-PD-1 cohort. In the ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort, median PFS was significantly higher for BRAF-mutant melanoma (9.9 months; 95% CI, 6.8 to 17.2) compared with NRAS-mutant (4.8 months; 95% CI, 3.0 to 7.5) and double wild-type (5.3 months; 95% CI, 3.6 to 7.1). In multivariable analysis, BRAF-mutant melanoma was significantly associated with a lower risk of progression or death in the ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort. Median OS was significantly higher for BRAF-mutant melanoma compared with NRAS-mutant and double wild-type melanoma for both immune checkpoint inhibitor regimens. CONCLUSION: Ipilimumab-nivolumab-treated patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma display improved PFS and OS compared with patients with NRAS-mutant and double wild-type melanoma. BRAF mutation status is a factor to consider while choosing between mono and dual checkpoint inhibition in advanced melanoma. 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
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
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
