Purpose To define a safe treatment dose of ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) when applied in combination with percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP) in metastatic uveal melanoma ... Show morePurpose To define a safe treatment dose of ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) when applied in combination with percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP) in metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) patients (NCT04283890), primary objective was defining a safe treatment dose of IPI/NIVO plus M-PHP. Toxicity was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 (CTCAEv4.03). Secondary objective was response rate, PFS and OS.Materials and Methods Patients between 18-75 years with confirmed measurable hepatic mUM according to RECIST 1.1 and WHO performance score 0-1 were included. Intravenous IPI was applied at 1 mg/kg while NIVO dose was increased from 1 mg/kg in cohort 1 to 3 mg/kg in cohort 2. Transarterial melphalan dose for M-PHP was 3 mg/kg (maximum of 220 mg) in both cohorts. Treatment duration was 12 weeks, consisting of four 3-weekly courses IPI/NIVO and two 6-weekly M-PHPs.Results Seven patients were included with a median age of 63.6 years (range 50-74). Both dose levels were well tolerated without dose-limiting toxicities or deaths. Grade III/IV adverse events (AE) were observed in 2/3 patients in cohort 1 and in 3/4 patients in cohort 2, including Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), febrile neutropenia and cholecystitis. Grade I/II immune-related AEs occurred in all patients, including myositis, hypothyroidism, hepatitis and dermatitis. There were no dose-limiting toxicities. The safe IPI/NIVO dose was defined as IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg. There was 1 complete response, 5 partial responses and 1 stable disease (3 ongoing responses with a median FU of 29.1 months).Conclusion Combining M-PHP with IPI/NIVO was safe in this small cohort of patients with mUM at a dose of IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg. 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
Tong, T.M.L.; Kooij, M.K. van der; Speetjens, F.M.; Erkel, A.R. van; Meer, R.W. van der; Lutjeboer, J.; ... ; Kapiteijn, E. 2022
Background: While immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, no standard treatments are available for patients with metastatic uveal... Show moreBackground: While immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, no standard treatments are available for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (UM). Several locoregional therapies are effective in the treatment of liver metastases, such as percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (M-PHP). The available literature suggests that treatment with ICI following locoregional treatment of liver UM metastases can result in clinical response. We hypothesize that combining M-PHP with ICI will lead to enhanced antigen presentation and increased immunomodulatory effect, improving control of both hepatic and extrahepatic disease.Methods: Open-label, single-center, phase Ib/randomized phase II trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of the combination of M-PHP with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in patients with unresectable hepatic metastases of UM in first-line treatment, with or without the limited extrahepatic disease. The primary objective is to determine the safety, toxicity, and efficacy of the combination regimen, defined by maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 year. Secondary objectives include overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR). A maximum of 88 patients will be treated in phase I and phase II combined. Baseline characteristics will be described with descriptive statistics (t-test, chi-square test). To study the association between risk factors and toxicity, a logistic regression model will be applied. PFS and OS will be summarized using Kaplan-Meier curves.Discussion: This is the first trial to evaluate this treatment combination by establishing the maximum tolerated dose and evaluating the efficacy of the combination treatment. M-PHP has shown to be a safe and effective treatment for UM patients with liver metastases and became the standard treatment option in our center. The combination of ICI with M-PHP is investigated in the currently described trial which might lead to a better treatment response both in and outside the liver. Show less
Background: The treatment landscape has completely changed for advanced melanoma. We report survival outcomes and the differential impact of prognostic factors over time in daily clinical practice... Show moreBackground: The treatment landscape has completely changed for advanced melanoma. We report survival outcomes and the differential impact of prognostic factors over time in daily clinical practice.Methods: From a Dutch nationwide population-based registry, patients with advanced melanoma diagnosed from 2013 to 2017 were analysed (n = 3616). Because the proportional hazards assumption was violated, a multivariable Cox model restricted to the first 6 months and a multivariable landmark Cox model from 6 to 48 months were used to assess overall survival (OS) of cases without missing values. The 2017 cohort was excluded from this analysis because of the short follow-up time.Results: Median OS of the 2013 and 2016 cohort was 11.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-13.5) and 17.7 months (95% CI: 14.9-19.8), respectively. Compared with the 2013 cohort, the 2016 cohort had superior survival in the Cox model from 0 to 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.43-0.72]) and in the Cox model from 6 to 48 months (HR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.57-0.83]). Elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, distant metastases in >= 3 organ sites, brain and liver metastasis and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of >= 1 had stronger association with inferior survival from 0 to 6 months than from 6 to 48 months. BRAF-mutated melanoma had superior survival in the first 6 months (HR = 0.50 [95% CI: 0.42-0.59]).Conclusion(s): Prognosis for advanced melanoma in the Netherlands has improved from 2013 to 2016. Prognostic importance of most evaluated factors was higher in the first 6 months after diagnosis. BRAF-mutated melanoma was only associated with superior survival in the first 6 months. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Bastiaannet, E.; Battisti, N.; Loh, K.P.; Glas, N. de; Soto-Perez-de-Celis, E.; Baldini, C.; ... ; Lichtman, S. 2019
Malignant melanoma is an aggressive cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with metastatic disease. As in many other cancers, the incidence of melanoma rises with age; and combined... Show moreMalignant melanoma is an aggressive cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with metastatic disease. As in many other cancers, the incidence of melanoma rises with age; and combined with the longer life expectancy, this led to an increasing prevalence of melanoma in the older population. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors significantly improved the treatment of melanoma given their efficacy and tolerability profile. Two major classes of agents include the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CFLA-4) inhibitors, such as ipilimumab, and the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1) inhibitors, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Treatment of metastatic disease with immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated improved efficacy and better safety profiles compared to cytotoxic drugs and appears to be an attractive treatment option. Nevertheless, there is a need for tools designed to better predict which older patients will benefit from its use and who will experience toxicities related to the treatment. Current data do not show a major increase in toxicity rates in older patients. However, patients above 75 are often under-represented and those who are included are not representative of the general population of older patients, thereby also stressing the need for real-life data. Ongoing research is aiming at maximizing the potential treatment efficacy and developing novel immune-targeting modalities. Future studies should include older patients and assess geriatric domains in these older patients to better guide decision-making. This review discusses published clinical trials and where known, the efficacy and toxicity in older patients. Moreover, the clinical implications and future perspectives are discussed, with current recommendations for older patients, management of toxicities, and a proposal for an initial approach to the treatment of older patients with metastatic melanoma. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
