Search

Purpose: To describe patient characteristics by disease stage, resectability status and current treatment management after first diagnosis of IIIB to IV1c advanced (AM)/metastatic melanoma (MM)., Methods/patients: Multicentre, retrospective study based on data from medical charts of patients > 18 years at MM first diagnosis, visited by oncologists at 4 reference centres in Spain: Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón (Madrid), Hospital General de Valencia (Valencia), Clínica Universidad de Navarra (Pamplona), and Hospital Clínic (Barcelona)., Results: Metastatic non-visceral melanoma (IIIB, IIIC, IV M1a) was reported in 139 (48.6%) patients and 40.9% (n = 117) were diagnosed with IV-M1c disease. 160 (55.9%) metastases were resectable. Available therapies under clinical practice were used in 210 patients; 74 were treated under clinical trials (CT). Intention-to-cure surgery (47.6%) was the most common treatment at time of MM diagnosis. Systemic (45.1% overall) therapy included chemo-, targeted- and immunotherapy (19.6%, 14.3%, 8.4%, respectively). At time of data collection, 26 patients were still alive and 120 had progressed to IV-M1c. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly larger in IIIB patients, 28.9 m (25.2-32.7); the shortest for IV-M1c patients, 11.0 m (8.7-13.3)., Conclusions: Novel treatments are undoubtedly a major step forward in AM/MM, however these are often only available in the CT setting because early stages of development or country-specific regulations. Further prospective studies and multifactorial analysis should be performed to clearly identify possible clinical associations for outcome in Spanish patients with AM/MM.

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)