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: 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
Verver, D.; Grunhagen, D.J.; Akkooi, A.C.J. van; Aarts, M.J.B.; Berkmortel, F.W.P.J. van den; Eertwegh, A.J.M. van den; ... ; Veldt, A.A.M. van der 2021
Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is considered different from melanoma of known primary (MKP), and it is unclear whether these patients benefit equally from novel therapies. In the current study,... Show moreMelanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is considered different from melanoma of known primary (MKP), and it is unclear whether these patients benefit equally from novel therapies. In the current study, characteristics and overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced and metastatic MUP and MKP were compared in the era of novel therapy. Patients were selected from the prospective nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR). The following criteria were applied: diagnosis of stage IIIc unresectable or IV cutaneous MKP (cMKP) or MUP between July 2012 and July 2017 and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition and/or targeted therapy. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The stratified multivariable Cox regression model was used for adjusted analysis. A total of 2706 patients were eligible including 2321 (85.8%) patients with cMKP and 385 (14.2%) with MUP. In comparative analysis, MUP patients more often presented with advanced and metastatic disease at primary diagnosis with poorer performance status, higher LDH, and central nervous system metastases. In crude analysis, median OS of cMKP or MUP patients was 12 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5 - 44) and 14 months (IQR 5 - not reached), respectively (P = 0.278). In adjusted analysis, OS in MUP patients was superior (hazard rate 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.85; P < 0.001). As compared to patients with advanced and metastatic cMKP, MUP patients have superior survival in adjusted analysis, but usually present with poorer prognostic characteristics. In crude analysis, OS was comparable indicating that patients with MUP benefit at least equally from treatment with novel therapies. Show less
Mulder, E.E.A.P.; Joode, K. de; Litiere, S.; Tije, A.J. ten; Suijkerbuijk, K.P.M.; Boers-Sonderen, M.J.; ... ; Veldt, A.A.M. van der 2021
Background The introduction of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockers (i.e. nivolumab and pembrolizumab) has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma.... Show moreBackground The introduction of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockers (i.e. nivolumab and pembrolizumab) has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma. However, the long treatment duration (i.e. two years or longer) has a high impact on patients and healthcare systems in terms of (severe) toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and healthcare costs. While durable tumour responses have been observed and PD-1 blockade is discontinued on an individual basis, no consensus has been reached on the optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade is safe in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma who achieve a radiological response.MethodsThe Safe Stop trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 200 patients with advanced and metastatic cutaneous melanoma and a confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 will be included to early discontinue first-line monotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. The primary objective is the rate of ongoing responses at 24 months after discontinuation of PD-1 blockade. Secondary objectives include best overall and duration of response, need and outcome of rechallenge with PD-1 blockade, and changes in (serious) adverse events and HRQoL. The impact of treatment discontinuation on healthcare resource use, productivity losses, and hours of informal care will also be assessed. Results will be compared to those from patients with CR or PR who completed 24months of treatment with PD-1 blockade and had an ongoing response at treatment discontinuation. It is hypothesised that it is safe to early stop first-line nivolumab or pembrolizumab at confirmed tumour response while improving HRQoL and reducing costs.DiscussionFrom a patient, healthcare, and economic perspective, shorter treatment duration is preferred and overtreatment should be prevented. If early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade appears to be safe, early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade may be implemented as the standard of care in a selected group of patients.Trial registrationThe Safe Stop trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL7293 (old NTR ID: 7502), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7293. Date of registration September 30, 2018. 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
