Search

Background: Little is known about outcomes of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting. Since 2019, adjuvant-treated melanoma patients have been registered in the DMTR, a population-based registry to monitor the quality and safety of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This study aims to describe treatment patterns, relapse, and toxicity rates of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting., Methods: Analyses were performed on adjuvant-treated melanoma patients included in the DMTR. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse patient-, and treatment characteristics. A baseline registration completeness analysis was performed, and an analysis on trial eligibility in clinical practice patients. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 12-months was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: A total of 641 patients were treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. RFS at 12-months was 70.6% (95% CI, 66.9-74.6) with a median follow-up of 12.8 months. Sex, stage of disease and Breslow thickness were associated with a higher hazard for RFS. Eighteen per cent of the anti-PD-1-treated patients developed grade ≥3 toxicity. Sixty-one per cent of patients prematurely discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy., Conclusion: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment of resected stage III/IV melanoma in daily practice showed slightly higher toxicity rates and more frequent premature discontinuation but similar RFS rates compared to trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement AvdE has advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck and has received research study grants not related to this paper from Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera and TEVA and has received travel expenses from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer and Sanofi and has received speaker honoraria from BMS and Novartis. MBS has consultancy/advisory relationships with Pierre Fabre, MSD and Novartis. JdG has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Novartis. GH consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and has received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Seerave. EK has consultancy/advisory relationships with BristolMyers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb. KS has advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Abbvie and received honoraria from Novartis, MSD and Roche. AvdV has consultancy relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai, Merck. JH has advisory relationships with Achilles Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Immunocore, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Neogene Therapeutics, PokeAcel, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, T-Knife, Third Rock Ventures, and has received research grants not related to this paper from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, BioNTech, Neogene Therapeutics and Novartis. All grants were paid to the institutions. The funders had no role in the writing of this article or decision to submit it for publication. AvA has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sirius Medical, 4SC. Research grants from Amgen, Merck-Pfizer. All outside of current work and all paid to institute. MA has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer. Research grants Merck-Pfizer. Not related to current work and paid to institute. HMW has received travel expenses from Ipsen and Astellas and has received honoraria from Roche and Astellas. RvR has received expert meeting fees from Roche and advisory board fees from Pfizer. EE has received speaker honoraria from BMS, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin, and travel/conference expenses from MSD. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cabazitaxel has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients after docetaxel in the TROPIC trial. However, trial populations may not reflect the real-world population. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes of cabazitaxel within and outside trials (standard of care, SOC)., Patients and Methods: mCRPC patients treated with cabazitaxel directly after docetaxel therapy before 2017 were retrospectively identified and followed to 2018. Patients were grouped on the basis of treatment within a trial or SOC. Outcomes included OS and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response., Results: From 3616 patients in the CAPRI registry, we identified 356 patients treated with cabazitaxel, with 173 patients treated in the second line. Trial patients had favorable prognostic factors: fewer symptoms, less visceral disease, lower lactate dehydrogenase, higher hemoglobin, more docetaxel cycles, and longer treatment-free interval since docetaxel therapy. PSA response (≥ 50% decline) was 28 versus 12%, respectively (P = .209). Median OS was 13.6 versus 9.6 months for trial and SOC subgroups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.73, P = .067). After correction for prognostic factors, there was no difference in survival (hazard ratio = 1.00, P = .999). Longer duration of androgen deprivation therapy treatment, lower lactate dehydrogenase, and lower PSA were associated with longer OS; visceral disease had a trend for shorter OS., Conclusion: Patients treated with cabazitaxel in trials were fitter and showed outcomes comparable to registration trials. Conversely, those treated in daily practice showed features of more aggressive disease and worse outcome. This underlines the importance of adequate estimation of trial eligibility and health status of mCRPC patients in daily practice to ensure optimal outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Testicular cancer (TC) treatment increases risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs). It is unknown whether changes in TC treatment over time have affected SMN risk. Methods Solid SMN risk was evaluated in a multicenter cohort comprising 5,848 1-year survivors treated for TC before age 50 years between 1976 and 2007. SMN incidence was compared with cancer incidence in the general population. Treatment-specific risks were assessed using multivariable regression in a case-cohort design. Results After a median follow-up of 14.1 years, 350 solid SMNs were observed, translating into a 1.8-fold (95% CI, 1.6-2.0) increased risk compared with general population rates. Solid SMN risk was increased in patients with seminoma and those with nonseminoma (standardized incidence ratio, 1.52 and 2.21, respectively). Patients with nonseminoma experienced increased risk of SMNs of the thyroid, lung, stomach, pancreas, colon, and bladder and of melanoma and soft tissue sarcoma, whereas those with seminoma experienced increased risk of SMNs of the small intestine, pancreas, and urinary bladder. The 25-year cumulative incidence of solid SMNs was 10.3% (95% CI, 9.0% to 11.6%). In multivariable analysis, platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with increased risk of a solid SMN (hazard ratio [HR], 2.40; 95% CI, 1.58 to 3.62), colorectal SMN (HR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.67 to 8.92), and noncolorectal GI SMN (HR, 5.00; 95% CI, 2.28 to 10.95). Receipt of platinum 400 to 499 and ≥ 500 mg/m 2 increased solid SMN risk compared with surgery only (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.40 to 4.23 and HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.90, respectively), whereas risk was not significantly increased with lower doses (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 0.90 to 3.43). The HR of a GI SMN increased by 53% (95% CI, 26% to 80%) per 100 mg/m 2 of platinum-containing chemotherapy. The HR of an infradiaphragmatic SMN increased by 8% per Gray of radiation dose administered (95% CI, 6% to 9%; P < .001). Conclusion Radiotherapy and platinum-containing chemotherapy are associated with increased solid SMN risk, specifically with GI SMNs.

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.

Objective: To evaluate treatment strategies and survival of patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma since the 2012 introduction of new drugs in the Netherlands., Design: Prospective cohort study., Method: We analysed data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) regarding patients diagnosed with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma in the period of 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2015. We estimated survival times using the Kaplan-Meier method. The relationship between year of diagnosis and survival was estimated using Cox regression analysis, adjusted for age, WHO performance status, lactate dehydrogenase values, stage, brain metastases and distant metastases., Results: Out of 2,768 registered patients, approximately three-quarters received systemic therapy. This treatment was subject to change every year. Median survival was 10.7 months (95% CI: 9.6-13.2) in 2012 and 13.8 months (95% CI: 11.8-15.6) in 2015. Median survival for patients receiving systemic therapy was 17.1 months in 2015. 2-year survival in this period increased from 23% to 40%. Patients diagnosed in 2015 had better survival than patients of 2014 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82; 95% CI: 0.73-0.93). This was also true for patients receiving systemic therapy (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69-0.91)., Conclusion: Fast availability of new drugs, initiated by the then minister of VWS (health, welfare and sport) and the professional organisation, has thoroughly changed treatment of unresectable stage IIIc and IV melanoma. Data from the DMTR indicate safe use of these new drugs in daily practice and improved survival of advanced-melanoma patients in recent years.

Background: Despite the advent of immunotherapy in urothelial cancer, there is still a need to find effective cytotoxic agents beyond first and second lines. Vinflunine is the only treatment approved in this setting by the European Medicines Agency and taxanes are also widely used in second line. Cabazitaxel is a taxane with activity in docetaxel-refractory cancers. A randomized study was conducted to compare its efficacy versus vinflunine., Patients and Methods: This is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II/III study, following a Simon's optimal method with stopping rules based on an interim futility analysis and a formal efficacy analysis at the end of the phase II. ECOG Performance Status, anaemia and liver metastases were stratification factors. Primary objectives were overall response rate for the phase II and overall survival for the phase III., Results: Seventy patients were included in the phase II across 19 institutions in Europe. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Three patients (13%) obtained a partial response on cabazitaxel (95% CI 2.7-32.4) and six patients (30%) in the vinflunine arm (95% CI 11.9-54.3). Median progression-free survival for cabazitaxel was 1.9 versus 2.9 months for vinflunine (P = 0.039). The study did not proceed to phase III since the futility analysis showed a lack of efficacy of cabazitaxel. A trend for overall survival benefit was found favouring vinflunine (median 7.6 versus 5.5 months). Grade 3- to 4-related adverse events were seen in 41% patients with no difference between the two arms., Conclusion: This phase II/III second line bladder study comparing cabazitaxel with vinflunine was closed when the phase II showed a lack of efficacy of the cabazitaxel arm. Vinflunine results were consistent with those known previously., Trial Number: NCT01830231., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)