Search

When 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. We 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. Overall, 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. Even 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. • Melanoma-related mortality after tumour responses has not been studied so far. • Using multi-state models, the prognostic impact of response states was assessed. • Melanoma-related mortality dominates population mortality in advanced melanoma. • Population mortality plays a role in patients ≥75 years who respond to therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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). 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. 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. 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. • Survival of advanced mucosal melanoma (MM) was worse than cutaneous melanoma (CM). • Prognosis of advanced MM has not improved as much as CM despite novel therapies. • ECOG PS of ≥1 and elevated LDH were the most important prognostic factors. • The prognosis of different types of MM appeared to be similar. • NRAS and KIT were the most common mutations in MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]