BackgroundIn this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab across various mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)... Show moreBackgroundIn this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab across various mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumours in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). This is a clinical study in which patients are treated with drugs outside their labeled indication, based on their tumour molecular profile.Patients and methodsPatients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours who had exhausted all standard of care options were eligible. Patients were treated with durvalumab. The primary endpoints were clinical benefit ((CB): objective response (OR) or stable disease ≥16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1, up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1/8 patients had CB in stage 1. At baseline, fresh frozen biopsies were obtained for biomarker analyses.ResultsTwenty-six patients with 10 different cancer types were included. Two patients (2/26, 8%) were considered as non-evaluable for the primary endpoint. CB was observed in 13 patients (13/26, 50%) with an OR in 7 patients (7/26, 27%). The remaining 11 patients (11/26, 42%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 5 months (95% CI, 2-not reached) and 14 months (95% CI, 5-not reached), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed. We found a significantly higher structural variant (SV) burden in patients without CB. Additionally, we observed a significant enrichment of JAK1 frameshift mutations and a significantly lower IFN-γ expression in patients without CB.ConclusionDurvalumab was generally well-tolerated and provided durable responses in pre-treated patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours. High SV burden, JAK1 frameshift mutations and low IFN-γ expression were associated with a lack of CB; this provides a rationale for larger studies to validate these findings. 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: 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
Background: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is rare and has a poor prognosis. Since 2011, new effective treatments are available for advanced melanoma. It is unclear whether patients with mucosal melanoma... Show moreBackground: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is rare and has a poor prognosis. Since 2011, new effective treatments are available for advanced melanoma. It is unclear whether patients with mucosal melanoma equally benefit from these new treatments compared with patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM).Methods: Patients with advanced MM and CM diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 were included from a nationwide population-based registry the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method (also for a propensity score-matched cohort). A Cox model was used to analyse the association of possible prognostic factors with OS.Results: In total, 120 patients with MM and 2960 patients with CM were included. Median OS was 8.7 months and 14.5 months, respectively. Patients with MM were older (median age 70 versus 65 years) and more often female (60% versus 41%), compared with CM. In total, 77% and 2% of the MM patients were treated with first-line immunotherapy and targeted therapy, respectively, compared with 49% and 33% of the CM patients. In contrast to CM, OS for MM did not improve for patients diagnosed in 2015-2017, compared with 2013-2014. ECOG performance score >= 1 (HR = 1.99 [1.26-3.15; p = 0.003]) and elevated LDH level (HR = 1.63 [0.96-2.76]; p = 0.069) in MM were associated with worse survival.Conclusions: Within the era of immune and targeted therapies, prognosis for patients with advanced MM has not improved as much as for CM. Collaboration is necessary to enlarge sample size for research to improve immunotherapeutic strategies and identify targetable mutations. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 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
