Search

Data regarding elderly melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-CTLA-4 antibodies are in favor of tolerability outcomes that are similar to those of younger counterparts. However, there are very few studies focusing on elderly patients receiving nivolumab combined with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI). Here, we ask what are the current prescribing patterns of NIVO + IPI in the very elderly population and analyze the tolerance profile. This French multicenter retrospective study was conducted on 60 melanoma patients aged 80 years and older treated with NIVO + IPI between January 2011 and June 2022. The mean age at first NIVO + IPI administration was 83.7 years (range: 79.3-93.3 years). Fifty-five patients (92%) were in good general condition and lived at home. Two dosing regimens were used: NIVO 1 mg/kg + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W (NIVO1 + IPI3) in 27 patients (45%) and NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W (NIVO3 + IPI1) in 33 patients (55%). NIVO + IPI was a first-line treatment in 39 patients (65%). The global prevalence of immune-related adverse events was 63% (38/60), with 27% (16/60) being of grade 3 or higher. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were less frequent in patients treated with NIVO3 + IPI1 compared with those treated with NIVO1 + IPI3 (12% versus 44%, p = 0.04). In conclusion, the prescribing patterns of NIVO + IPI in very elderly patients are heterogeneous in terms of the dosing regimen and line of treatment. The safety profile of NIVO + IPI is reassuring; whether or not the low-dose regimen NIVO3 + IPI1 should be preferred over NIVO1 + IPI3 in patients aged 80 years or older remains an open question.

Background: The long-term effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge for progressive or recurrent advanced melanoma following previous disease control induced by ICI has not been thoroughly described in the literature., Patients and Methods: In this retrospective multicenter national real-life study, we enrolled patients who had been rechallenged with an ICI after achieving disease control with a first course of ICI, which was subsequently interrupted. The primary objective was to evaluate tumor response, while the secondary objectives included assessing the safety profile, identifying factors associated with tumor response, and evaluating survival outcomes., Results: A total of 85 patients from 12 centers were included in the study. These patients had advanced (unresectable stage III or stage IV) melanoma that had been previously treated and controlled with a first course of ICI before undergoing rechallenge with ICI. The rechallenge treatments consisted of pembrolizumab ( n = 44, 52%), nivolumab ( n = 35, 41%), ipilimumab ( n = 2, 2%), or ipilimumab plus nivolumab ( n = 4, 5%). The best overall response rate was 54%. The best response was a complete response in 30 patients (35%), a partial response in 16 patients (19%), stable disease in 18 patients (21%) and progressive disease in 21 patients (25%). Twenty-eight adverse events (AEs) were reported in 23 patients (27%), including 18 grade 1-2 AEs in 14 patients (16%) and 10 grade 3-4 AEs in nine patients (11%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached at the time of analysis. Patients who received another systemic treatment (chemotherapy, targeted therapy or clinical trial) between the two courses of ICI had a lower response to rechallenge ( p = 0.035) and shorter PFS ( p = 0.016)., Conclusion: Rechallenging advanced melanoma patients with ICI after previous disease control induced by these inhibitors resulted in high response rates (54%) and disease control (75%). Therefore, ICI rechallenge should be considered as a relevant therapeutic option.

Nine drugs have been marketed for 10 years for the treatment of advanced melanoma (AM). With half of patients reaching a second line, the optimal sequence of treatments remains unclear. To inform policy-makers about their efficiency, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential strategies in clinical practice in France, for BRAF-mutated and wild-type patients. A multistate model was developed to describe treatment sequences, associated costs, and health outcomes over 10 years. Sequences, clinical outcomes, utility scores, and economic data were extracted from the prospective Melbase cohort, collecting individual data in 1518 patients since 2013, from their AM diagnosis until their death. To adjust the differences in patients' characteristics among sequences, weighting by inverse probability was used. In the BRAF-mutated population, the MONO-targeted therapies (TT)-anti-PD1 sequence was the less expensive, whereas the anti-PD1-BI-TT sequence had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 180,441 EUR/QALY. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population, the three sequences constituted the cost-effective frontier, with ICERs ranging from 116 to 806,000 EUR/QALY. For BRAF-mutated patients, the sequence anti-PD1-BI-TT appeared to be the most efficient one in BRAF-mutated AM patients until 2018. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population until 2018, the sequence starting with IPI+NIVO appeared inefficient compared to anti-PD1, considering the extra cost for the QALY gained.

Although cemiplimab has been approved for locally advanced (la) and metastatic (m) cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas (CSCCs), its real-life value has not yet been demonstrated. An early-access program enrolled patients with la/mCSCCs to receive cemiplimab. Endpoints were best overall response rate (BOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR) and safety. The 245 patients (mean age 77 years, 73% male, 49% prior systemic treatment, 24% immunocompromised, 27% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) ≥ 2) had laCSCCs (35%) or mCSCCs (65%). For the 240 recipients of ≥1 infusion(s), the BOR was 50.4% (complete, 21%; partial, 29%). With median follow-up at 12.6 months, median PFS was 7.9 months, and median OS and DOR were not reached. One-year OS was 73% versus 36%, respectively, for patients with PS < 2 versus ≥ 2. Multivariate analysis retained PS ≥ 2 as being associated during the first 6 months with PFS and OS. Head-and-neck location was associated with longer PFS. Immune status had no impact. Severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients, including one death from toxic epidermal necrolysis. Cemiplimab real-life safety and efficacy support its use for la/mCSCCs. Patients with PS ≥ 2 benefited less from cemiplimab, but it might represent an option for immunocompromised patients.

Purpose: Melanoma's incidence is increasing, and elderly people could be significantly impacted since the majority occurs in people over 65 years of age. Combined BRAF and MEK targeted therapies (TT) are current standard regimen for BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma (MM). Except for subgroups of pivotal trials, little data are available for TT in this population., Materials and Methods: Outcomes were explored in real life patients from MelBase, a French multicentric biobank dedicated to the prospective follow-up of unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Patients treated by BRAF TT and/or MEK TT combined or not, were included from 2013 to 2017 in 2 groups: group 1 ≤ 65-year-old (yo), group 2 > 65 yo, analyzed for tolerance and efficacy., Results: 353 patients were included: 231 in group 1, 122 in group 2. Median follow-up was 12 months (M). Median time of treatment was 6.9 M. A total of 80% had at least one Adverse Effect (AE). Most frequent AE (all grades) were mainly skin and subcutaneous, general, and gastrointestinal disorders. A total of 31% of AE were grade 3-4: 28% in group 1 and 39% in group 2 ( p = 0.05). No differences were observed in all AE grades proportion, dose modifications, interruptions, and discontinuations. For each group, median overall survival was 20.3 M (CI 95%: 15.5-27.9) and 16.3 M (CI: 14.5-26.9), respectively ( p = 0.8). Median progression free survival was 7.8 M (6.4-9.9) and 7.7 M (CI: 5.8-11.3) ( p = 0.4). Objective response rate was 59% and 50% ( p = 0.6)., Conclusion: This study on a large multicentric cohort is the first to assess that TT is well tolerated in elderly BRAF-mutated patients such as in patients younger than 65. Efficacy was similar between groups with outcomes reaching those from pivotal studies. There is thus no argument against using TT in elderly people, although an onco-geriatric opinion is welcome for the most vulnerable.

Despite significant progress in melanoma survival, therapeutic options are still needed in case of progression under immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and resistance to targeted therapies (TT) in BRAF-mutated melanomas. This study aimed to assess the safety of combined ICI and TT as a rescue line in real-life clinical practice. We conducted a study within the prospective French multicentric MelBase cohort, including patients treated with a combination of anti-PD1 (pembrolizumab/nivolumab) and BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi: dabrafenib/vemurafenib) and/or MEK inhibitors (MEKi: trametinib/cobimetinib) for BRAF mutated or wild-type advanced melanoma. Fifty-nine patients were included: 30% received the triple combination, 34% an anti-PD1 and BRAFi, and 36% an anti-PD1 and MEKi. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 12% of patients. Permanent discontinuation or dose reduction of one of the treatments for toxicity was reported in 14% and 7% of patients, respectively. In the BRAF wild-type subgroup, treatment with MEKi and anti-PD1 induced a tumor control rate of 83% and median progression-free survival of 7.1 months. The combination of anti-PD1 and BRAFi and/or MEKi was a safe rescue line for advanced melanoma patients previously treated with ICI/TT. The benefit of these combinations, specifically anti-PD1 and MEKi in BRAF wild-type melanoma patients, needs to be prospectively studied.