Search

Background: Immunotherapy has improved the survival of patients with stage IV melanoma. In responders, clinical benefits may be long-lasting and persist even after treatment discontinuation. The optimal duration of anti-PD1 (anti-Programmed cell death-1) therapy in metastatic melanoma patients remains to be elucidated. Moreover, limited data are available on clinical outcomes of patients that discontinued anti-PD1 immunotherapy in a real-life setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic melanoma who interrupted anti-PD-1 treatment in the in the absence of disease progression., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD1 immunotherapy at 23 Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) centres. The study investigated the risk of relapse in patients who stopped anti-PD1 therapy due to CR (Complete response), treatment-related toxicity, or by their own choice after a long period of treatment. Clinical and biological factors associated with or without recurrence were evaluated., Results: The study population included 237 patients. The median age of patients was 68.9 years (standard deviation: 13; range 33-95). The median time on treatment was 33 months (standard deviation: 18, 7; range 1-98). Among the 237 patients, 128 (54%) interrupted the anti-PD1 for CR, 74 patients (31.2%) for adverse events (37 patients in CR, 27 patients in partial response (PR), ten patients in stable disease (SD), and 35 patients (14.8%) by their own choice (12 patients in CR, 17 patients in PR, and 6 patients in SD). After a mean follow-up of 21 months (range 1-81), PFS after anti-PD1 discontinuation was 85.7%. Thirty-four patients (14.3%) developed disease progression after a median of 12 months (range 1-35): ten patients (29.4%) after discontinuation in CR, 17 patients (50%) after discontinuation for treatment-related toxicity (seven in CR, five in PR, five in SD), and seven (20.6%) after discontinuation due to the patient's decision (two in CR, four in PR, one in SD). Only 7.8% of patients who interrupted in CR (10/128), along with 23% of patients who interrupted for limiting toxicity (17/74) and 20% of patients who interrupted by their own choice (7/35), developed recurrence. Regarding patients who discontinued therapy because of CR, we observed a negative association between recurrence and site of primary melanoma, especially mucosal sites (p = <0.05, HR (Hazard ratio) 15.57 IC (confidence interval) 95% 2.64-91.73). Moreover, M1b patients who achieved a CR showed a lower number of relapses (p = <0.05, HR 3.84 IC 95% 1.40-8.48)., Conclusions: This study shows in a real-life setting that, with anti-PD-1 therapy, long-lasting responses, can be maintained after anti-PD1 interruption. In 70.6% of cases, recurrences were observed among patients who did not obtain a CR at treatment discontinuation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Marco Rubatto: nothing to declare, Paolo Fava: nothing to declare, Ignazio Stanganelli: nothing to declare, Simone Ribero: nothing to declare, Jacopo Pigozzo Advisory board BMS, MSD, Novartis, Anna Maria Di Giacomo: has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Incyte, Pierre Fabre, Glaxo Smith Kline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Immunocore, SunPharma and Sanofi and has received compensated educational activities from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi, Laura Ridolfi: nothing to declare, Maria Chiara Tronconi: nothing to declare, Claudia Trojaniello: sanofi, Melissa Bersanelli: nothing to declare, Mattia Garutti honoraria or consultation fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre and Roche, and travel fees from Daichii Sankyo, all outside the submitted work, Alice Indini: nothing to declare, Ivana De Risi: nothing to declare, Michele De Tursi: nothing to declare, Barbara Merelli: nothing to declare, Francesca Morgese: nothing to declare, Marcella Occelli: nothing to declare, Gian Carlo Antonini Cappellini: nothing to declare, Stefano Poletto: nothing to declare, Dahlia Fedele: nothing to declare, Sonia Brugnara: nothing to declare, Michela Frisinghelli: nothing to declare, Luigi Formisano: LF has received research funding from Lilly outside the submitted work. LF is on the Advisory Board for Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, MSD and BMS, Raffaele Conca: nothing to declare, Marco Tucci: nothing to declare, Michelangelo Russillo: nothing to declare, Luca Ceroni: nothing to declare, Paola Queirolo: nothing to declare, Giada Targato: nothing to declare, Sabino Strippoli: nothing to declare, Mario Mandalà: Advisory board and lectures for: MSD, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma Research grant: Novartis, Michele Guida: nothing to declare, Pietro Quaglino: nothing to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment sequencing with first-line immunotherapy, followed by second-line chemotherapy, is still a viable option for NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%., Methods: We evaluated post-progression treatment pathways in a large real-world cohort of metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy., Results: Overall, 974 patients were included. With a median follow-up of 22.7 months (95%CI: 21.6-38.2), the median overall survival (OS) of the entire population was 15.8 months (95%CI: 13.5-17.5; 548 events). At the data cutoff, among the 678 patients who experienced disease progression, 379 (55.9%) had not received any further treatment, and 359 patients (52.9%) had died. Patients who did not receive post-progression therapies were older (p = 0.0011), with a worse ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and were on corticosteroids prior to pembrolizumab (p = 0.0024). At disease progression, 198 patients (29.2%) received a switched approach and 101 (14.9%) received pembrolizumab ByPD either alone (64 [9.4%]) or in combination with local ablative treatments (37 [5.5%]) (LATs). After a random-case control matching according to ECOG-PS, CNS metastases, bone metastases, and (previous) best response to pembrolizumab, patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD plus LATs were confirmed to have a significantly longer post-progression OS compared to patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD alone 13.9 months versus 7.8 months (p = 0.0179) 241 patients (35.5%) among the 678 who had experienced PD, received a second-line systemic treatment (regardless of previous treatment beyond PD). As compared to first-line treatment commencement, patients' features at the moment of second-line initiation showed a significantly higher proportion of patients aged under 70 years (p = 0.0244), with a poorer ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and having CNS (p = 0.0001), bone (p = 0.0266) and liver metastases (p = 0.0148)., Conclusions: In the real-world scenario NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% treated with first-line single-agent pembrolizumab achieve worse outcomes as compared to the Keynote-024 trial. Poor post-progression outcomes are major determinants of the global results that should be considered when counselling patients for first-line treatment choices., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Dr Alessio Cortellini received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Istituto Gentili and Astellas. Dr Raffaele Giusti received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca and Roche. Dr Joachim GJV Aerts reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, MSD and Roche. Dr Alex Friedlaender received grant consultancies by Roche, Pfizer, Astellas and BMS. Dr Alessandro Morabito received speaker fees by Astra, Roche, BMS, MSD, Boehringer, Pfizer, Takeda. Dr Francesca Mazzoni received grant consultancies by MSD and Takeda. Dr Rita Chiari received speaker fees by BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and Astrazeneca. Dr Carlo Genova received speaker fees/grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. Dr Marco Russano received honoraria for scientific events by Roche, Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Marcello Tiseo received speakers’ and consultants’ fee from Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka, Takeda, Pierre Fabre. Dr Alfredo Addeo received grant consultancies by Takeda, MSD, BMJ, Astrazeneca, Roche and Pfizer. Dr Rita Chiari received speaker fees by BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and Astrazeneca. Dr Carlo Genova received speaker fees/grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. Dr David J Pinato received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, Astra Zeneca; received research funding (to institution) from MSD, BMS. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)