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
Breeschoten, J. van; Eertwegh, A.J.M. van den; Hilarius, D.L.; Haanen, J.B.; Blank, C.U.; Aarts, M.J.B.; ... ; Wreede, L.C. de 2023
IntroductionWhen analysing patient survival, one is often interested in cause of death. Little is known about the presence of population mortality in advanced melanoma patients. The aim of this... Show moreIntroductionWhen analysing patient survival, one is often interested in cause of death. Little is known about the presence of population mortality in advanced melanoma patients. The aim of this study was to assess population mortality after different response states in advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands, and analyse the contribution of disease and population mortality for different age groups.MethodsWe selected patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2019 with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. A multi-state model with response states integrating population mortality was fitted. One-year landmark analyses were performed to assess outcomes after each response state.ResultsOverall, 5119 patients were selected. Five-year probabilities of melanoma-related mortality in patients alive in complete response at one year after diagnosis increased with age, and was 17.2% (95% confidence interval: 13.0–21.4) for patients aged <65 years and 28.7% (95% confidence interval: 24.3–33.1) in patients aged ≥80 years. Population mortality only played a large role for older patients (75 years and above) alive at 1 year after diagnosis with a partial or complete response.ConclusionEven though survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients have improved over the last decade, the vast majority of patients still die due to melanoma-related mortality. Show less
Ismail, R.K.; Schramel, F.M.N.H.; Dartel, M. van; Pasmooij, A.M.G.; Welle, C.M. van der; Hilarius, D.L.; ... ; Garde, E.M.W. van de 2023
BackgroundMany studies have compared real-world clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with reported outcomes data from pivotal trials.... Show moreBackgroundMany studies have compared real-world clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with reported outcomes data from pivotal trials. However, any differences observed could be only limitedly explored further for causation because of the unavailability of individual patient data (IPD) from trial participants. The present study aims to explore the additional benefit of comparison with IPD.MethodsThis study compares progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of metastatic NSCLC patients treated with second line nivolumab in real-world clinical practice (n = 141) with IPD from participants in the Checkmate-057 clinical trial (n = 292). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to construct HRs for real-world practice versus clinical trial.ResultsReal-world patients were older (64 vs. 61 years), had more often ECOG PS ≥ 2 (5 vs. 0%) and were less often treated with subsequent anti-cancer treatment (28.4 vs. 42.5%) compared to trial patients. The median PFS in real-world patients was longer (3.84 (95%CI: 3.19-5.49) vs 2.30 (2.20-3.50) months) and the OS shorter than in trial participants (8.25 (6.93-13.2) vs. 12.2 (9.90-15.1) months). Adjustment with available patient characteristics, led to a shift in the hazard ratio (HR) for OS, but not for PFS (HRs from 1.13 (0.88-1.44) to 1.07 (0.83-1.38), and from 0.82 (0.66-1.03) to 0.79 (0.63-1.00), respectively).ConclusionsThis study is an example how IPD from both real-world and trial patients can be applied to search for factors that could explain an efficacy-effectiveness gap. Making IPD from clinical trials available to the international research community allows this. 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
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: Little is known about outcomes of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting. Since 2019, adjuvant-treated melanoma patients have been registered in the DMTR,... Show moreBackground: Little is known about outcomes of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting. Since 2019, adjuvant-treated melanoma patients have been registered in the DMTR, a population-based registry to monitor the quality and safety of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This study aims to describe treatment patterns, relapse, and toxicity rates of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting.Methods: Analyses were performed on adjuvant-treated melanoma patients included in the DMTR. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse patient-, and treatment characteristics. A baseline registration completeness analysis was performed, and an analysis on trial eligibility in clinical practice patients. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 12-months was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method.Results: A total of 641 patients were treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. RFS at 12-months was 70.6% (95% CI, 66.9-74.6) with a median follow-up of 12.8 months. Sex, stage of disease and Breslow thickness were associated with a higher hazard for RFS. Eighteen per cent of the anti-PD-1-treated patients developed grade >= 3 toxicity. Sixty-one per cent of patients prematurely discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy.Conclusion: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment of resected stage III/IV melanoma in daily practice showed slightly higher toxicity rates and more frequent premature discontinuation but similar RFS rates compared to trials. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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
Ismail, R.K.; Sikkes, N.O.; Wouters, M.W.J.M.; Hilarius, D.L.; Pasmooij, A.M.G.; Eertwegh, A.J.M. van den; ... ; Boer, A. de 2021
Postapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for... Show morePostapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for advanced melanoma patients. We aimed to investigate whether a patient registry can complement or even replace postapproval trials. Postapproval single-arm clinical trial data from the Medicines Evaluation Board and real-world data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were used. The study population consisted of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with targeted therapies (BRAF- or BRAF-MEK inhibitors) in the first line. A Cox hazard regression model and a propensity score matching (PSM) model were used to compare the two patient populations. Compared to patients treated in postapproval trials (n = 467), real-world patients (n = 602) had significantly higher age, higher ECOG performance status, more often >= 3 organ involvement and more symptomatic brain metastases. Lactate dehydrogenase levels were similar between both groups. The unadjusted median overall survival (mOS) in postapproval clinical trial patients was 8.7 (95% CI, 8.1-10.4) months compared to 7.2 (95% CI, 6.5-7.7) months (P < 0.01) in real-world patients. With the Cox hazard regression model, survival was adjusted for prognostic factors, which led to a statistically insignificant difference in mOS for trial and real-world patients of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.9-10.4) months compared to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.3-7.9) months, respectively. The PSM model resulted in 310 matched patients with similar survival (P = 0.9). Clinical outcomes of both data sources were similar. Registries could be a complementary data source to postapproval clinical trials to establish information on clinical outcomes in specific subpopulations. Copyright (c) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 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
Ismail, R.K.; Schramel, F.M.N.H.; Dartel, M. van; Hilarius, D.L.; Boer, A. de; Wouters, M.W.J.M.; ... ; Dutch Lung Canc Audit Sci Comm 2020
Objectives: This study describes the initiation of the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Lung Oncology (DLCA-L) and reports the first results of three years of clinical auditing.Methods: The initiation,... Show moreObjectives: This study describes the initiation of the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Lung Oncology (DLCA-L) and reports the first results of three years of clinical auditing.Methods: The initiation, dataset, and data quality of the DLCA-L are described. For the analyses, all patients registered from 2017 to 2019 were included. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the first outcomes of the DLCA-L, including results from quality indicators, patient- and tumor characteristics, and the real-world use of immunotherapy.Results: The DLCA-L was initiated after the surgery and radiotherapy audit for lung cancer. In total, 33.788 NSCLC patients and 4.293 SCLC patients were registered in the DLCA-L from 2017 to 2019. Seventy-three (97 %) Dutch hospitals participated in the DLCA-L in 2019. The registry became nation-wide in 2020. The data quality improved over the years, with complete cases in 90 % of the NSCLC patients. In total, 15 quality indicators were established based on DLCA-L data to improve processes and clinical outcomes. An example of these quality indicators was brain imaging at diagnosis of stage III NSCLC patients, which increased from 80 % in 2017 to 90 % in 2019 and hospital variation was reduced. The DLCA-L provided data on immunotherapy use in stage IV NSCLC (n = 4.415) patients. These patients had a median age of 67 years and 11 % of the patients had an ECOG PS >= 2. The number of patients treated with immunotherapy in different hospitals varied between 2 patients to 163 patients per hospital.Conclusion: The DLCA-L has become a valuable and complete data source with national coverage in 2020. A high number of registered patients and limited missing data resulted in better insights into hospital processes and outcomes of lung cancer care. Quality indicators were, with success, used to establish improvements and minimize hospital variation. The DLCA-L also provides hospitals real-world information on the use of (systemic) therapies. Show less
Zeijl, M.C.T. van; Ismail, R.K.; Wreede, L.C. de; Eertwegh, A.J.M. van den; Boer, A. de; Dartel, M. van; ... ; Wouters, M.W.J.M. 2020
The aim was to provide evidence on systemically treated patients with advanced melanoma not represented in phase III trials to support clinical decision-making. Analysis were performed on advanced... Show moreThe aim was to provide evidence on systemically treated patients with advanced melanoma not represented in phase III trials to support clinical decision-making. Analysis were performed on advanced melanoma patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 in the Netherlands, treated with immune- or targeted therapy, who met >= 1 trial exclusion criteria. These criteria were derived from the KEYNOTE-006 and CHECKMATE-067/-066 phase III trials. Prognostic importance of factors associated with overall survival (OS) was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method, Cox models, predicted OS probabilities of prognostic subgroups and a conditional inference survival tree (CIST). A nationwide population-based registry was used as data source. Of 2536 systemically treated patients with advanced melanoma, 1004 (40%) patients were ineligible for phase IIII trials. Ineligible patients had a poorer median OS (mOS) compared to eligible patients (8.8 vs 23 months). Eligibility criteria strongly associated with OS in systemically treated ineligible patients were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score (ECOG PS) >= 2, brain metastases (BM) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) of >500 U/L. Patients with ECOG PS of >= 2 with or without symptomatic BM had a predicted mOS of 6.5 and 11.3 months and a 3-year survival probability of 9.3% and 23.6%, respectively. The CIST showed the strongest prognostic covariate for survival was LDH, followed by ECOG PS. The prognosis of patients with LDH of >500 U/L is poor, but long-term survival is possible. The prognosis of ineligible patients with advanced melanoma in real-world was very heterogeneous and highly dependent on LDH value, ECOG PS and symptomatic BM. Show less
