Search

In phase III trials, ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination therapy is highly efficacious for advanced melanoma, despite many treatment-related grades 3–4 adverse events. Here, we report real-world safety and survival outcomes of ipilimumab plus nivolumab for advanced melanoma. Patients with advanced melanoma who received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 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. In total, 709 patients received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Three hundred sixty (50.7%) patients experienced grade 3–4 adverse events, with 211 of the (58.6%) patients requiring hospital admission. The 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 32% (95% CI: 23–46). 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 with clinical trials.

Background: Radium-223 is a registered treatment option for symptomatic bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Aim of this multicenter, prospective observational cohort study was to evaluate health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), psychological distress and fatigue in mCRPC patients treated with radium-223. Methods: Primary endpoint was cancer-specific and bone metastases-related HR-QoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BM-22 questionnaires. Secondary endpoints were psychological distress and fatigue, evaluated by the HADS and CIS-Fatigue questionnaires. Outcomes were analyzed for the total cohort and between subgroups (1-3 versus 4-5 versus 6 radium-223 injections). A trajectory analysis was performed to explore HR-QoL patterns over time. Results: In total, 122 patients were included for analysis. Baseline HR-QoL, pain intensity, psychological distress and fatigue were worse in patients who did not complete radium-223 therapy. In patients who completed therapy, stabilization of HR-QoL was perceived and psychological distress and fatigue remained stable, whereas clinically meaningful and statistically significant deterioration of HR-QoL, psychological distress and fatigue over time was observed in patients who discontinued radium-223 therapy. Trajectory analysis revealed that HR-QoL deterioration over time was more likely in patients with baseline opioid use, low hemoglobin and high alkaline phosphatase levels. Conclusions: Patients who discontinued radium-223 therapy showed worse HR-QoL, psychological distress and fatigue at baseline and more frequent deterioration of HR-QoL, psychological distress and fatigue over time when compared to patients who completed therapy. Specific attention with regard to HR-QoL during follow-up is indicated in patients with opioid use, low hemoglobin and high alkaline phosphatase levels before radium-223 therapy initiation. Clinical trial registration number: NCT04995614.

IMPORTANCE: Management of checkpoint inhibitor–induced immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is primarily based on expert opinion. Recent studies have suggested detrimental effects of anti–tumor necrosis factor on checkpoint-inhibitor efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of toxic effect management with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab combination therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This population-based, multicenter cohort study included patients with advanced melanoma experiencing grade 3 and higher irAEs after treatment with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab between 2015 and 2021. Data were collected from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Median follow-up was 23.6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The PFS, OS, and MSS were analyzed according to toxic effect management regimen. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess factors associated with PFS and OS. RESULTS: Of 771 patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab, 350 patients (median [IQR] age, 60.0 [51.0-68.0] years; 206 [58.9%] male) were treated with immunosuppression for severe irAEs. Of these patients, 235 received steroids alone, and 115 received steroids with second-line immunosuppressants. Colitis and hepatitis were the most frequently reported types of toxic effects. Except for type of toxic effect, no statistically significant differences existed at baseline. Median PFS was statistically significantly longer for patients treated with steroids alone compared with patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (11.3 [95% CI, 9.6-19.6] months vs 5.4 [95% CI, 4.5-12.4] months; P = .01). Median OS was also statistically significantly longer for the group receiving steroids alone compared with those receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (46.1 months [95% CI, 39.0 months-not reached (NR)] vs 22.5 months [95% CI, 36.5 months-NR]; P = .04). Median MSS was also better in the group receiving steroids alone compared with the group receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (NR [95% CI, 46.1 months-NR] vs 28.8 months [95% CI, 20.5 months-NR]; P = .006). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants showed a trend toward a higher risk of progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00-1.97]; P = .05) and had a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.03-2.30]; P = .04) compared with those receiving steroids alone. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, second-line immunosuppression for irAEs was associated with impaired PFS, OS, and MSS in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab. These findings stress the importance of assessing the effects of differential irAE management strategies, not only in patients with melanoma but also other tumor types.

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) 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.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.The efficacy of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) monotherapy for advanced melanoma has been established, but it is unknown to what extent patients benefit in the real world. In this observational study with nationwide population-based data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, we analyzed real-world outcomes of first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy in advanced melanoma patients diagnosed in 2015 to 2016. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate probabilities for second-line treatment, with death as competing risk. With a Cox model, the association of factors with OS was estimated. Patients who received anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n=550) had a median age of 65 years and 502 (95%) patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1, 383 (70%) had normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), 370 (67%) had stage IV-M1c disease, and in 441 (81%), brain metastases were absent. The median OS was 24 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 20-30 mo]. The median OS of patients normally eligible for phase III trial participation was 31 months (95% CI: 23-not estimable). The BRAF mutation was associated with superior OS. ECOG PS of ≥1, symptomatic brain metastases, and liver metastases were associated with inferior OS and, together with elevated LDH, with death before second-line treatment. Patients with a complete response had a 2-year OS probability from first reported complete response of 92% (95% CI: 86%-99%). Real-world advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands have benefitted from anti-PD-1 monotherapy. ECOG PS ≥1, symptomatic brain metastasis, liver metastasis, and elevated LDH are important prognostic factors for survival. The additional information that this study provides could help to improve more effective use in the real world.

Oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) is a heterogeneous disease state that is imperfectly understood, and its clinical implications are unclear.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.The aim of this population-based study was to identify the factors associated with clinical outcomes in vemurafenib-treated patients and to evaluate outcomes across subgroups of patients with different risk profiles. Data were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Time to next treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) of all metastatic melanoma patients who received vemurafenib between 2012 and 2015 were assessed using Kaplan–Meier estimates. A risk score was developed on the basis of all prognostic factors associated with TTNT and OS derived from multivariable Cox regression analyses. Patients were stratified according to the presence of prognostic risk factors by counting the number of factors, ranging from 0 to 6. A total of 626 patients received vemurafenib with a median follow-up of 35.8 months. The median TTNT and OS were 4.7 months [95% confidence intervals (CI): 4.4–5.1] and 7.3 months (95% CI: 6.6–8.0). The strongest prognostic factors were serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, number of organ sites involved and brain metastases. Patients with a favourable risk profile (no risk factors) had a median TTNT and OS of 7.1 (95% CI: 5.8–8.5) and 15.4 months (95% CI: 10.0–20.9). The median OS more than halved for patients with greater than or equal to 2 risk factors compared with patients with no risk factors. The clinical outcomes of vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with a favourable risk profile are comparable with the results of the trials. Combining prognostic factors into a risk score could be valuable to stratify patients into favourable and poor-prognosis groups.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.Phase III trials with ipilimumab showed an improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the use and safety of ipilimumab, and the survival of all patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (N=807) receiving ipilimumab in real-world clinical practice in The Netherlands using data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients who were registered between July 2012 and July 2015 were included and analyzed according to their treatment status: treatment-naive (N=344) versus previously-treated (N=463). Overall, 70% of treatment-naive patients and 62% of previously-treated patients received all four planned doses of ipilimumab. Grade 3 and 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 29% of treatment-naive patients and 21% of previously-treated patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Median time to first event was 5.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.7–6.5 months] in treatment-naive patients and 4.4 months (95% CI: 4.0–4.7 months) in previously-treated patients. Median overall survival was 14.3 months (95% CI: 11.6–16.7 months) in treatment-naive patients and 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.6–9.6 months) in previously-treated patients. In both patient groups, an elevated lactate dehydrogenase level (hazard ratio: 2.25 and 1.70 in treatment-naive and previously-treated patients, respectively) and American Joint Committee on Cancer M1c-stage disease (hazard ratio: 1.81 and 1.83, respectively) were negatively associated with overall survival. These real-world outcomes of ipilimumab slightly differed from outcomes in phase III trials. Although phase III trials are crucial for establishing efficacy, real-world data are of great added value enhancing the generalizability of outcomes of ipilimumab in clinical practice.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.There is limited evidence on the costs associated with ipilimumab. We investigated healthcare costs of all Dutch patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma who were treated with ipilimumab. Data were retrieved from the nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Costs were determined by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use. A total of 807 patients who were diagnosed between July 2012 and July 2015 received ipilimumab in Dutch practice. The mean (median) episode duration was 6.27 (4.61) months (computed from the start of ipilimumab until the start of a next treatment, death, or the last date of follow-up). The average total healthcare costs amounted to €81 484, but varied widely (range: €18 131–€160 002). Ipilimumab was by far the most important cost driver (€73 739). Other costs were related to hospital admissions (€3323), hospital visits (€1791), diagnostics and imaging (€1505), radiotherapy (€828), and surgery (€297). Monthly costs for resource use other than ipilimumab were €1997 (SD: €2629). Treatment-naive patients (n=344) had higher total costs compared with previously-treated patients (n=463; €85 081 vs. €78 811). Although patients with colitis (n=106) had higher costs for resource use other than ipilimumab (€11 426) compared with patients with other types of immune-related adverse events (n=90; €9850) and patients with no immune-related adverse event (n=611; €6796), they had lower total costs (€76 075 vs. €87 882 and €81 480, respectively). In conclusion, this nation-wide study provides valuable insights into the healthcare costs of advanced cutaneous melanoma patients who were treated with ipilimumab in clinical practice. Most of the costs were attributable to ipilimumab, but the costs and its distribution varied considerably across subgroups.

IMPORTANCE: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized clinical trial evaluating an alternating treatment regimen in an attempt to delay disease progression in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. OBJECTIVE: To test our hypothesis that an 8-week rotating treatment schedule with pazopanib and everolimus delays disease progression, exhibits more favorable toxic effects, and improves quality of life when compared with continuous treatment with pazopanib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an open-label, randomized (1:1) study (ROPETAR trial). In total, 101 patients with treatment-naive progressive metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 from 17 large peripheral or academic hospitals in The Netherlands and followed for at least one year. INTERVENTIONS: First-line treatment consisted of either an 8-week alternating treatment schedule of pazopanib 800 mg/d and everolimus 10 mg/d (rotating arm) or continuous pazopanib 800 mg/d (control arm) until progression. After progression, patients made a final rotation to either pazopanib or everolimus monotherapy (rotating arm) or initiated everolimus (control arm). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary end point was survival until first progression or death. Secondary end points included time to second progression or death, toxic effects, and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were randomized to the rotating arm (median [range] age, 65 [44-87] years) and 49 patients to the control arm (median [range] age, 67 [38-82] years). Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk category was favorable in 26% of patients, intermediate in 58%, and poor in 15%. Baseline characteristics and risk categories were well balanced between arms. One-year PFS1 for rotating treatment was 45% (95% CI, 33-60) and 32% (95% CI, 21-49) for pazopanib (control). Median time until first progression or death for rotating treatment was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.6-18.4) and 9.4 months (95% CI, 6.6-11.9) for pazopanib (control) (P = .37). Mucositis, anorexia, and dizziness were more prevalent in the rotating arm during first-line treatment. No difference in quality of life was observed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Rotating treatment did not result in prolonged progression-free-survival, fewer toxic effects, or improved quality of life. First-line treatment with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor remains the optimal approach in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01408004