Search

Introduction: In patients with metastatic melanoma, progression of a single tumour lesion (solitary progression) after response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is increasingly treated with local therapy. We evaluated the role of local therapy for solitary progression in melanoma., Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ICI between 2010 and 2019 with solitary progression as first progressive event were included from 17 centres in 9 countries. Follow-up and survival are reported from ICI initiation., Results: We identified 294 patients with solitary progression after stable disease in 15%, partial response in 55% and complete response in 30%. The median follow-up was 43 months; the median time to solitary progression was 13 months, and the median time to subsequent progression after treatment of solitary progression (TTSP) was 33 months. The estimated 3-year overall survival (OS) was 79%; median OS was not reached. Treatment consisted of systemic therapy (18%), local therapy (36%), both combined (42%) or active surveillance (4%). In 44% of patients treated for solitary progression, no subsequent progression occurred. For solitary progression during ICI (n = 143), the median TTSP was 29 months. Both TTSP and OS were similar for local therapy, ICI continuation and both combined. For solitary progression post ICI (n = 151), the median TTSP was 35 months. TTSP was higher for ICI recommencement plus local therapy than local therapy or ICI recommencement alone (p = 0.006), without OS differences., Conclusion: Almost half of patients with melanoma treated for solitary progression after initial response to ICI had no subsequent progression. This study suggests that local therapy can benefit patients and is associated with favourable long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement All authors declare no direct conflict with this work. For unrelated conflicts, K.P.M.S. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AbbVie and Pierre Fabre and has received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Roche. L.Z. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Sun Pharma; has received research funding from Novartis; has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche and has received travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Sun Pharma. E.W.K. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and has received travel support from Roche. C.A. has received travel support from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche. D.B.J. has an advisory role for Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck and Novartis; has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Incyte and has received travel support from Genentech. Adriana H. is an employee of AstraZeneca with stock options in the company, has received honoraria from Novartis; has an advisory role for L.E.K. Consulting and has received travel support from Roche. J.M. has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck-Pfizer, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has an advisory role for Amgen, Merck-Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pierre Fabre and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, L'Oreal, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Ultrasun. P.B. has received travel support from MSD. Y.J.L.J. has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD and Pfizer. V.A. has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, OncoSec and Pierre Fabre. P.A.A. has an advisory role for 4SC, Alkermes, Amgen, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Genmab, Idera, Immunoscore, Incyte, Italfarmaco, MedImmune, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Syndax and Ultimovacs; has received research funding from Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb and Genentech; has received travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme and is a stockowner of PrimeVax. Andrew H. has received honoraria from Merck and Novartis and has an advisory role for Novartis and Pierre Fabre. A.M.M. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche. G.V.L. is a consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech, Inc., Amgen Inc., Array BioPharma Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and SkylineDX B.V. C.L. had received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre and Roche; has an advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche and has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme. A.A.M.v.d.V. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi and has received research funding from Bayer and travel support from Bayer, MSD Oncology, Novartis and Roche. M.S.C. has an advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, IDEAYA Biosciences, Merck and Co, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and QBiotics and has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novartis. S.S. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck and Merck Serono; has an advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis and Roche outside the submitted work and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Endocyte, Genentech and Merck Sharp & Dohme. E.G.E.d.V. has an advisory role for Daiichi Sankyo, NSABP and Sanofi; has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Servier and Synthon and is the chair of ESMO Cancer Medicines Working Group, chair of RECITS committee and member of the ESMO-MCBS working group. C.U.B. has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and NanoString; has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Genmab and Pierre Fabre and is a stockowner of Uniti Cars. M.J. has an advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Pierre Fabre., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous trials suggest no differences in immunotherapy treatment between older and younger patients, but mainly young patients with a good performance status were included. The aim of this study was to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of "real-world" older patients with metastatic melanoma and to identify predictors of outcome., Methods: We included patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic melanoma from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We described the reasons for hospital admissions and treatment discontinuation. Additionally, we assessed predictors of toxicity and response using logistic regression models and survival using Cox regression models., Results: We included 2216 patients. Grade ≥3 toxicity was not associated with age, comorbidities or WHO status. Patients aged ≥75 discontinued treatment due to toxicity more often, resulting in fewer treatment cycles. Response rates were similar to previous trials (40.3% and 43.6% in patients aged 65-75 and ≥75, respectively, for anti-PD1 treatment) and did not decrease with age or comorbidity. Melanoma-specific survival was not affected by age or comorbidity., Conclusion: Response rates and toxicity outcomes of checkpoint inhibitors did not change with increasing age or comorbidity. However, the impact of grade I-II toxicity on quality of life deserves further study as older patients discontinue treatment more frequently.

Introduction: Hyperprogression, characterized by a rapid acceleration in tumor growth, is a novel pattern of progression recently described in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. This study aims to assess the incidence of hyperprogression in patients with advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint inhibitors., Methods: Clinical and radiological findings of all advanced melanoma patients who started checkpoint inhibitors between January 2013 and March 2019 in a tertiary academic center in the Netherlands were analyzed. Change in tumor burden was calculated by assessing volumetric tumor growth using the criteria as defined by immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Hyperprogression was defined as a time to treatment failure less than 2 months with doubling of tumor burden and a twofold increase in tumor growth rate during treatment. Possible hyperprogression was defined as the presence of the first two criteria in the absence of a pre-baseline scan., Results: Out of 206 treatment episodes in 168 patients, 75 were evaluable for hyperprogression and 87 for possible hyperprogression. Hyperprogression was observed in one patient (1.3%) and possible hyperprogression was observed in one patient (1.1%)., Conclusion: Hyperprogression is rare in melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our data question if hyperprogression really is a biological entity in metastatic melanoma.

Purpose: Although the prognosis of patients with thin primary cutaneous melanomas (T1, ≤ 1.0 mm) is generally excellent, some develop recurrence. We sought to develop and validate a model predicting recurrences in patients with thin melanomas., Methods: A Dutch population-based cohort (n = 25,930, development set) and a cohort from an Australian melanoma treatment center (n = 2,968, validation set) were analyzed (median follow-up 6.7 and 12.0 years, respectively). Multivariable Cox models were generated for local, regional, and distant recurrence-free survival (RFS). Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-statistic for each outcome. Each nomogram performance was evaluated using calibration plots defining low-risk and high-risk groups as the lowest and top 5% of the nomogram risk score, respectively. The nomograms' C-statistics were compared with those of a model including the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging parameters (T-stage and sentinel node status)., Results: Local, regional, and distant recurrences were found in 209 (0.8%), 503 (1.9%), and 203 (0.8%) Dutch patients, respectively, and 23 (0.8%), 61 (2.1%), and 75 (2.5%) Australian patients, respectively. C-statistics of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.82) for local RFS, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.78) for regional RFS, and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.83) for distant RFS were obtained for the development model. External validation showed C-statistics of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.90), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.82), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.80), respectively. Calibration plots showed a good match between predicted and observed rates. Using the nomogram, the C-statistic was increased by 9%-12% for the development cohort and by 11%-15% for the validation cohort, compared with a model including only T-stage and sentinel node status., Conclusion: Most patients with thin melanomas have an excellent prognosis, but some develop recurrence. The presented nomograms can accurately identify a subgroup at high risk. An online calculator is available at www.melanomarisk.org.au., Competing Interests: Alexander H. R. VareyConsulting or Advisory Role: MedtronicTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Synthes Karijn P. M. SuijkerbuijkConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre FabreSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Paul J. van DiestConsulting or Advisory Role: Pantarhei BiosciencePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: DDX3 as a biomarker for cancer and methods related thereto Richard A. ScolyerEmployment: Royal Prince Alfred HospitalConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare GmbH, Novartis Australia, Amgen, Myriad Genetics, MSD Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Limited, Novartis, QBioticsResearch Funding: The Ainsworth Foundation, National Health and Medical Research CouncilTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis Australia Carla H. van GilsConsulting or Advisory Role: BayerSpeakers' Bureau: BayerResearch Funding: BayerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer John F. ThompsonHonoraria: GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Australia, ProvectusConsulting or Advisory Role: GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Australia, ProvectusTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Provectus, GlaxoSmithKlineNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Checkpoint inhibitor-induced hepatitis is an immune-related adverse event of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibition, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated 4 (CTLA-4) inhibition or the combination of both. Aim of this study was to assess whether checkpoint inhibitor-induced hepatitis is related to liver metastasis and outcome in a real-world nationwide cohort., Methods: Data from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) was used to analyze incidence, risk factors of checkpoint inhibitor-induced grade 3-4 hepatitis and outcome., Results: 2561 advanced cutaneous melanoma patients received 3111 treatments with checkpoint inhibitors between May 2012 and January 2019. Severe hepatitis occurred in 30/1620 (1.8%) patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors, in 29/1105 (2.6%) patients treated with ipilimumab and in 80/386 (20.7%) patients treated with combination therapy. Patients with hepatitis had a similar prevalence of liver metastasis compared to patients without hepatitis (32% vs. 27%; p = 0.58 for PD-1 inhibitors; 42% vs. 29%; p = 0.16 for ipilimumab; 38% vs. 43%; p = 0.50 for combination therapy). There was no difference in median progression free and overall survival between patients with and without hepatitis (6.0 months vs. 5.4 months progression-free survival; p = 0.61; 17.0 vs. 16.2 months overall survival; p = 0.44)., Conclusion: Incidence of hepatitis in a real-world cohort is 1.8% for PD-1 inhibitor, 2.6% for ipilimumab and 20.7% for combination therapy. Checkpoint inhibitor-induced hepatitis had no relation with liver metastasis and had no negative effect on the outcome.

Background: The introduction of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockers (i.e. nivolumab and pembrolizumab) has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma. However, the long treatment duration (i.e. two years or longer) has a high impact on patients and healthcare systems in terms of (severe) toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and healthcare costs. While durable tumour responses have been observed and PD-1 blockade is discontinued on an individual basis, no consensus has been reached on the optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade is safe in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma who achieve a radiological response., Methods: The Safe Stop trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 200 patients with advanced and metastatic cutaneous melanoma and a confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 will be included to early discontinue first-line monotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. The primary objective is the rate of ongoing responses at 24 months after discontinuation of PD-1 blockade. Secondary objectives include best overall and duration of response, need and outcome of rechallenge with PD-1 blockade, and changes in (serious) adverse events and HRQoL. The impact of treatment discontinuation on healthcare resource use, productivity losses, and hours of informal care will also be assessed. Results will be compared to those from patients with CR or PR who completed 24 months of treatment with PD-1 blockade and had an ongoing response at treatment discontinuation. It is hypothesised that it is safe to early stop first-line nivolumab or pembrolizumab at confirmed tumour response while improving HRQoL and reducing costs., Discussion: From a patient, healthcare, and economic perspective, shorter treatment duration is preferred and overtreatment should be prevented. If early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade appears to be safe, early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade may be implemented as the standard of care in a selected group of patients., Trial Registration: The Safe Stop trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL7293 (old NTR ID: 7502), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7293 . Date of registration September 30, 2018.

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAF V600 -mutant advanced melanoma. Until now, data are inconclusive on which therapy to use as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy vs. BRAF/MEK inhibitors in advanced BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma patients., Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with advanced melanoma and a known BRAF V600 -mutation treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD-1 antibodies, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were matched based on their propensity scores using the nearest neighbour and the optimal matching method., Results: Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 330 and 254 advanced melanoma patients received BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as first-line systemic therapy. In the matched cohort, patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies as a first-line treatment had a higher median and 2-year overall survival compared to patients treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 42.3 months (95% CI: 37.3-NE) vs. 19.8 months (95% CI: 16.7-24.3) and 65.4% (95% CI: 58.1-73.6) vs. 41.7% (95% CI: 34.2-51.0)., Conclusions: Our data suggest that in the matched BRAF V600 -mutant advanced melanoma patients, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the preferred first-line treatment in patients with relatively favourable patient and tumour characteristics.

Background: It has been claimed, without supporting evidence, that knowledge of sentinel node (SN) status does not provide more accurate prognostic information than basic clinicopathological features of a primary cutaneous melanoma. We sought to investigate this claim and to quantify any additional value of SN status in predicting survival outcome., Patients and Methods: Data for a Dutch population-based cohort of melanoma patients (n = 9272) and for a validation cohort from a large Australian melanoma treatment center (n = 5644) were analyzed. Patients were adults diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 with histologically-proven, primary invasive cutaneous melanoma who underwent SN biopsy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses were carried out in the Dutch cohort to assess recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS). The findings were validated using the Australian cohort. Discrimination (Harrell's C-statistic), net benefit using decision curve analysis and net reclassification index (NRI) were calculated., Results: The Dutch cohort showed an improved C-statistic from 0.74 to 0.78 for OS and from 0.74 to 0.76 for RFS when SN status was included in the model with Breslow thickness, sex, age, site, mitoses, ulceration, regression and melanoma subtype. In the Australian cohort, the C-statistic increased from 0.70 to 0.73 for OS, 0.70 to 0.74 for RFS and 0.72 to 0.76 for MSS. Decision curve analyses showed that the 3-year and 5-year risk of death or recurrence were more accurately classified with a model that included SN status. At 3 years, sensitivity increased by 12% for both OS and RFS in the development cohort, and by 10% and 6% for OS and RFS, respectively, in the validation cohort., Conclusions: Knowledge of SN status significantly improved the predictive accuracy for RFS, MSS and OS when added to a comprehensive suite of established clinicopathological prognostic factors. However, clinicians and patients must consider the magnitude of the improvement when weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of SN biopsy for melanoma., Competing Interests: Disclosure RAS has received fees for professional services from QBiotics Group Limited, Novartis, NeraCare, Amgen Inc., BMS, Myriad Genetics GmbH, GSK and MSD. JFT has received honoraria for advisory board participation from BMS, MSD, GSK and Provectus Inc., and travel support from GSK and Provectus Inc. KPMS has received honoraria for advisory board participation (paid to institution) from Novartis, MSD, BMS and Pierre Fabre, travel support from Roche and MSD and a research grant from Novartis. The other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have substantially improved the prognosis of patients with different types of cancer. Through blockade of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), negative feedback mechanisms of the immune system are inhibited, potentially resulting in very durable anti-tumor responses. Despite their promise, ICIs can also elicit auto-immune toxicities. These immune-related adverse events (irAEs) can be severe and sometimes even fatal. Therefore, being able to predict severe irAEs in patients would be of added value in clinical decision making. A search was performed using "adverse events", "immune checkpoint inhibitor", "biomarker", and synonyms in PubMed, yielding 3580 search results. After screening title and abstract on the relevance to the review question, statistical significance of reported potential biomarkers, and evaluation of the remaining full papers, 35 articles were included. Five additional reports were obtained by means of citations and by using the similar article function on PubMed. The current knowledge is presented in comprehensive tables summarizing blood-based, immunogenetic and microbial biomarkers predicting irAEs prior to and during ICI therapy. Until now, no single biomarker has proven to be sufficiently predictive for irAE development. Recommendations for further research on this topic are presented., Competing Interests: KS reports advisory relationships with Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Abbvie and Bristol Myers Squibb and received honoraria from Novartis and Roche; all outside the submitted work and paid to institution. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Hommes, Verheijden, Suijkerbuijk and Hamann.)

Postapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for advanced melanoma patients. We aimed to investigate whether a patient registry can complement or even replace postapproval trials. Postapproval single-arm clinical trial data from the Medicines Evaluation Board and real-world data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were used. The study population consisted of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with targeted therapies (BRAF- or BRAF-MEK inhibitors) in the first line. A Cox hazard regression model and a propensity score matching (PSM) model were used to compare the two patient populations. Compared to patients treated in postapproval trials (n = 467), real-world patients (n = 602) had significantly higher age, higher ECOG performance status, more often ≥3 organ involvement and more symptomatic brain metastases. Lactate dehydrogenase levels were similar between both groups. The unadjusted median overall survival (mOS) in postapproval clinical trial patients was 8.7 (95% CI, 8.1-10.4) months compared to 7.2 (95% CI, 6.5-7.7) months (P < 0.01) in real-world patients. With the Cox hazard regression model, survival was adjusted for prognostic factors, which led to a statistically insignificant difference in mOS for trial and real-world patients of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.9-10.4) months compared to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.3-7.9) months, respectively. The PSM model resulted in 310 matched patients with similar survival (P = 0.9). Clinical outcomes of both data sources were similar. Registries could be a complementary data source to postapproval clinical trials to establish information on clinical outcomes in specific subpopulations., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The treatment landscape has completely changed for advanced melanoma. We report survival outcomes and the differential impact of prognostic factors over time in daily clinical practice., Methods: From a Dutch nationwide population-based registry, patients with advanced melanoma diagnosed from 2013 to 2017 were analysed (n = 3616). Because the proportional hazards assumption was violated, a multivariable Cox model restricted to the first 6 months and a multivariable landmark Cox model from 6 to 48 months were used to assess overall survival (OS) of cases without missing values. The 2017 cohort was excluded from this analysis because of the short follow-up time., Results: Median OS of the 2013 and 2016 cohort was 11.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-13.5) and 17.7 months (95% CI: 14.9-19.8), respectively. Compared with the 2013 cohort, the 2016 cohort had superior survival in the Cox model from 0 to 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.43-0.72]) and in the Cox model from 6 to 48 months (HR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.57-0.83]). Elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, distant metastases in ≥3 organ sites, brain and liver metastasis and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of ≥1 had stronger association with inferior survival from 0 to 6 months than from 6 to 48 months. BRAF-mutated melanoma had superior survival in the first 6 months (HR = 0.50 [95% CI: 0.42-0.59])., Conclusion(s): Prognosis for advanced melanoma in the Netherlands has improved from 2013 to 2016. Prognostic importance of most evaluated factors was higher in the first 6 months after diagnosis. BRAF-mutated melanoma was only associated with superior survival in the first 6 months., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement AvdE reports advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre-Fabre. AvA reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, and 4SC and research grants not related to this paper from Amgen, BMS, and Novartis. JdG reports personal fees outside the submitted work from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, Servier, and MSD, Novartis. GH reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, and Novartis and research grants not related to this paper from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Seerave. EK has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI, Bayer, and Genzyme-Sanofi and research grants not related to this paper from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. KS advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre-Fabre. AvdV reports consultancy relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, and Eisai. JH reports advisory relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics and research grants not related to this paper from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Neon Therapeutics. 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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type and BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma in the Netherlands., Methods: We selected patients of 18 years and over, diagnosed between 2016 and 2017 with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. To assess the association of BRAFV600-mutation status with OS we used the Cox proportional-hazards model., Results: A total of 642 BRAFV600 wild-type and 853 mutant patients were included in the analysis. Median OS did not differ significantly between both groups, 15.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.2-19.2) versus 20.6 months (95% CI: 18.3-25.0). Survival rates at 6 and 12 months were significantly lower for BRAFV600 wild-type patients compared with BRAFV600-mutant patients, 72.0% (95% CI: 68.6-75.6) and 56.0% (95% CI: 52.2-60.0) versus 83.4% (95% CI: 80.9-85.9) and 65.7% (95% CI: 62.6-69.0). Two-year survival was not significantly different between both groups, 41.1% (95% CI: 37.2-45.3) versus 47.0% (95% CI: 43.6-60.6). Between 0 and 10 months, BRAFV600 wild-type patients had a decreased survival with a hazard ratio for OS of 2.00 (95% CI: 1.62-2.46) but this effect disappeared after 10 months. At 12 months, BRAFV600-mutant patients had started with second-line systemic treatment more often compared with BRAFV600 wild-type patients (50% vs. 19%)., Conclusion: These results suggest that advanced BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma patients have worse survival than BRAFV600-mutated patients during the first 10 months after diagnosis because of less available treatment options., Competing Interests: J.B.H. has advisory relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and has received research grants not related to this paper from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Neon Therapeutics. All grants were paid to the institutions. C.U.B. has advisory relationships with, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and grant support by BMS, Novartis, and NanoString. J.-W.B.d.G. has received personal fees outside the submitted work from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Novartis. G.A.P.H. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS. She received honoraria from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche and has received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seerave. A.A.M.v.d.V. has consultancy relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai. E.K. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, Bayer, Genzyme-Sanofi and received research grants not related to this paper from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. K.P.M.S. has consulting/advisory relationships with BMS and MSD. She received honoraria from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. A.J.M.v.d.E. has consulting/advisory relationships with BMS, Roche, MSD, and Novartis. He received a study grant from Roche. The funders had no role in the writing of this article or decision to submit it for publication. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with cancer who are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to develop severe illness and die compared with those without cancer. The impact of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) on the severity of COVID-19 illness is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ICI confers an additional risk for severe COVID-19 in patients with cancer., Methods: We analyzed data from 110 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 while on treatment with ICI without chemotherapy in 19 hospitals in North America, Europe and Australia. The primary objective was to describe the clinical course and to identify factors associated with hospital and intensive care (ICU) admission and mortality., Findings: Thirty-five (32%) patients were admitted to hospital and 18 (16%) died. All patients who died had advanced cancer, and only four were admitted to ICU. COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in 8 (7%) patients. Factors independently associated with an increased risk for hospital admission were ECOG ≥2 (OR 39.25, 95% CI 4.17 to 369.2, p=0.0013), treatment with combination ICI (OR 5.68, 95% CI 1.58 to 20.36, p=0.0273) and presence of COVID-19 symptoms (OR 5.30, 95% CI 1.57 to 17.89, p=0.0073). Seventy-six (73%) patients interrupted ICI due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, 43 (57%) of whom had resumed at data cut-off., Interpretation: COVID-19-related mortality in the ICI-treated population does not appear to be higher than previously published mortality rates for patients with cancer. Inpatient mortality of patients with cancer treated with ICI was high in comparison with previously reported rates for hospitalized patients with cancer and was due to COVID-19 in almost half of the cases. We identified factors associated with adverse outcomes in ICI-treated patients with COVID-19., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MiM: consultant/advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre. AANR: fellowship funding from Alamos Gold Inc. JMG: project focused consultant/advisor for Merck/Pfizer, MSD, Amgen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre; travel support from Ultrasun, L’Oreal, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre outside of the submitted work. TPM: fellowship funding from Alamos Gold Inc. SDS: consultant/advisor for Janssens, Novartis and Sanofi. AMM: consultant/advisor to Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre and QBiotics. MSC: consultant/advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Merck, Ideaya, Regeneron, Nektar, Eisai; honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis. CB: consultant/advisor for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis Pharma AG, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Roche Pharma, Sanofi Aventis. LiZ: consultant/advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Sanofi, MSD; research funding from Novartis; travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Sunpharma. DS: consultant/advisor for Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, Amgen, Immunocore, Incyte, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Mologen and Sanofi/Regeneron; honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Amgen, Immunocore, Incyte, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Sysmex, Grünenthal Group, Agenus, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Philogen, Regeneron and Mologen; travel/accommodation expenses from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Amgen and Merck; speakers bureau for Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Incyte, Pierre Fabre and Roche; research funding from Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb; steering committee membership for Novartis, MSD and Bristol Myers Squibb. AH: consultant/advisor for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD/Merck, Pfizer, NeraCare, Novartis, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Regeneron/Sanofi-Genzyme. RD: intermittent, project focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, MaxiVAX SA and touchIME outside the submitted work. JH: consultant/advisor for AIMM, AchillesTx, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, GSK, Immunocore, Merck Serono, MSD, Neogene Tx, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Third Rock Ventures, Vaximm; research grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, BioNTech, Novartis. CUB: consultant/advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, NanoString; stock ownership: Uniti Cars; co-founder: Immagene BV. CR: consultant/advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, CureVac, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. RJS: consultant/advisor for Asana Biosciences, Astrazeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Iovnace, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Replimune; research funding: Amgen, Merck. PAA: consultant/advisory for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Array, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, Medimmune, AstraZeneca, Syndax, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Array and travel support from MSD. FSH: consultancy/advisory for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, Surface, Compass Therapeutics, Apricity, Aduro, Sanofi, Pionyr, 7 Hills Pharma, Torque, Rheos, Kairos, Bicara, Psioxus Therapeutics, Pieris Pharmaceutical, Zumutor, Corner Therapeutics, Idera, Takeda, Genentech/Roche, Bioentre, Gossamer. KPMS: consulting/advisory for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Abbvie, Pierre Fabre, Novartis; honoraria received from Novartis, Roche, MSD (all paid to institution). KLR: consultant/advisor for Teladoc. OER: consultant/advisor for Merck, Celgene, Five Prime, GSK, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Puretech, Imvax, Sobi; research support from Merck; speaker for activities supported by educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; patent “Methods of using pembrolizumab and trebananib” pending. PCL: consultant/advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Amgen and Roche; travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb and MSD; research support from Bristol Myers Squibb. MaM: consultant advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, PierreFabre. GVL: consultant/advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics SL, MSD, Novartis Pharma AG, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, SkylineDX BV, all declarations of interest are outside of the submitted work. AR, IPS, CT, CAT, JMG, MHT, SN, LZ, PB, AE, NP, MGV, JB, SR, TC, JL, AV, MOB, ME, LP, PQ, CP, WHM, RDC and SL have no conflict of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Checkpoint inhibitors have changed overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. However, there is a lack of data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of long-term advanced melanoma survivors, years after treatment. Therefore, we evaluated HRQoL in long-term advanced melanoma survivors and compared the study outcomes with matched controls without cancer., Material and Methods: Ipilimumab-treated advanced melanoma survivors without evidence of disease and without subsequent systemic therapy for a minimum of two years following last administration of ipilimumab were eligible for this study. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma questionnaire (FACT-M) were administered. Controls were individually matched for age, gender, and educational status. Outcomes of survivors and controls were compared using generalized estimating equations, and differences were interpreted as clinically relevant according to published guidelines., Results: A total of 89 survivors and 265 controls were analyzed in this study. After a median follow-up of 39 (range, 17-121) months, survivors scored significantly lower on physical (83.7 vs . 89.8, difference (diff) = -5.80, p =.005), role (83.5 vs. 90, diff = -5.97, p =.02), cognitive (83.7 vs. 91.9, diff = -8.05, p =.001), and social functioning (86.5 vs. 95.1, diff = -8.49, p = <.001) and had a higher symptom burden of fatigue (23.0 vs. 15.5, diff = 7.48, p =.004), dyspnea (13.3 vs. 6.7, diff = 6.47 p =.02), diarrhea (7.9 vs. 4.0, diff = 3.78, p =.04), and financial impact (10.5 vs. 2.5, diff = 8.07, p =.001) than matched controls. Group differences were indicated as clinically relevant., Discussion: Compared to matched controls, long-term advanced melanoma survivors had overall worse functioning scores, more physical symptoms, and financial difficulties. These data may contribute to the development of appropriate survivorship care.

The aim was to provide evidence on systemically treated patients with advanced melanoma not represented in phase III trials to support clinical decision-making. Analysis were performed on advanced melanoma patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 in the Netherlands, treated with immune- or targeted therapy, who met ≥1 trial exclusion criteria. These criteria were derived from the KEYNOTE-006 and CHECKMATE-067/-066 phase III trials. Prognostic importance of factors associated with overall survival (OS) was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method, Cox models, predicted OS probabilities of prognostic subgroups and a conditional inference survival tree (CIST). A nationwide population-based registry was used as data source. Of 2536 systemically treated patients with advanced melanoma, 1004 (40%) patients were ineligible for phase IIII trials. Ineligible patients had a poorer median OS (mOS) compared to eligible patients (8.8 vs 23 months). Eligibility criteria strongly associated with OS in systemically treated ineligible patients were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score (ECOG PS) ≥2, brain metastases (BM) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) of >500 U/L. Patients with ECOG PS of ≥2 with or without symptomatic BM had a predicted mOS of 6.5 and 11.3 months and a 3-year survival probability of 9.3% and 23.6%, respectively. The CIST showed the strongest prognostic covariate for survival was LDH, followed by ECOG PS. The prognosis of patients with LDH of >500 U/L is poor, but long-term survival is possible. The prognosis of ineligible patients with advanced melanoma in real-world was very heterogeneous and highly dependent on LDH value, ECOG PS and symptomatic BM., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Purpose: A major challenge in metastatic spinal disease is timely identification of patients. Left untreated, spinal metastases may lead to gross mechanical instability and/or neurological deficits, often requiring extensive invasive surgical treatment. The aim of this cohort study was to assess the correlation between delayed treatment of patients with spinal metastases and functional performance, quality of life and survival., Methods: All patients surgically treated for metastatic spinal disease at a tertiary care facility were included for analysis. Patients who underwent elective surgery were considered as timely treated, whereas patients requiring emergency surgery were considered to be treated in a delayed fashion. EQ-5D scores, KPS scores and mortality rates were compared between the two groups., Results: A total of 317 patients (215 timely treated, 102 delayed) had survivorship data available and 202 patients (147 timely treated, 55 delayed) had clinical data available. Multivariate analyses showed delayed treatment was associated with lower EQ-5D and KPS scores and higher mortality rates, independent of confounders such as baseline EQ-5D/KPS scores, neurological status, tumor prognosis and patient age., Conclusions: The results from the present study show delayed treatment of patients with symptomatic spinal metastases has both direct and indirect adverse consequences for functional performance status, quality of life and survival. Optimization of referral pattern may accelerate the time to surgical treatment, potentially leading to better quality of life and survival.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) can cause severe and sometimes fatal immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Since these irAEs mimick immunological disease, a female predominance has been speculated on. Nevertheless, no demographic or tumour-related factors associated with an increased risk of irAEs have been identified until now., Methods: Risk ratios of severe (grade ≥3) irAEs for age, sex, WHO performance status, number of comorbidities, stage of disease, number of metastases and serum lactate dehydrogenases (LDH) were estimated using data from anti-PD1-treated patients with advanced melanoma in the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry., Results: 111 (11%) out of 819 anti-programmed cell death 1 treated patients experienced severe irAEs. Patients with non-lung visceral metastases (stage IV M1c or higher) less often experienced severe irAEs (11%) compared with patients with only lung and/or lymph node/soft tissue involvement (stage IV M1b or lower; 19%; adjusted risk ratio (RR adj ) 0.63; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.94). Patients with LDH of more than two times upper limit of normal had a non-significantly lower risk of developing severe irAEs than those with normal LDH (RR adj 0.65; 95% CI 0.20 to 2.13). None of the other variables were associated with severe irAEs., Conclusion: In patients with melanoma, more advanced disease is associated with a lower rate of severe irAEs. No association with sex was found., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CUB reports receiving commercial research grants from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and NanoString; is a paid advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab and Pierre Fabre; and holds ownership interest in Uniti Cars, Neon Therapeutics and Forty Seven. AJMvdE reports receiving commercial research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb; reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis; and is an unpaid consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre and AMGEN. JWdG is a paid consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD. GAH is an unpaid consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche and Novartis. AAMvdV is a paid consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Bayer. JBAGH is a paid consultant for AIMM, Neon Therapeutics, Immunocore, Vaximm and Neogene Therapeutics, and reports receiving commercial research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis and Neon Therapeutics. EK is a paid advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck/MSD and Pierre Fabre, and reports receiving commercial research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb. KPMS reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Novartis and Roche, and is an unpaid consultant/advisory board member for Novartis, Roche, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Bristol-Myers Squibb., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

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.

Background: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is rare and has a poor prognosis. Since 2011, new effective treatments are available for advanced melanoma. It is unclear whether patients with mucosal melanoma equally benefit from these new treatments compared with patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM)., Methods: Patients with advanced MM and CM diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 were included from a nationwide population-based registry - the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method (also for a propensity score-matched cohort). A Cox model was used to analyse the association of possible prognostic factors with OS., Results: In total, 120 patients with MM and 2960 patients with CM were included. Median OS was 8.7 months and 14.5 months, respectively. Patients with MM were older (median age 70 versus 65 years) and more often female (60% versus 41%), compared with CM. In total, 77% and 2% of the MM patients were treated with first-line immunotherapy and targeted therapy, respectively, compared with 49% and 33% of the CM patients. In contrast to CM, OS for MM did not improve for patients diagnosed in 2015-2017, compared with 2013-2014. ECOG performance score ≥1 (HR = 1.99 [1.26-3.15; p = 0.003]) and elevated LDH level (HR = 1.63 [0.96-2.76]; p = 0.069) in MM were associated with worse survival., Conclusions: Within the era of immune and targeted therapies, prognosis for patients with advanced MM has not improved as much as for CM. Collaboration is necessary to enlarge sample size for research to improve immunotherapeutic strategies and identify targetable mutations., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement M.C.T.v.Z., F.L.B., M.I.E.v.P., L.C.d.W., M.W.J.M.W., M.J.B.S., M.J.B.A., F.W.P.J.v.d.B., D.P., R.S.v.R., A.J.t.T., G.V., J.v.d.H. have no conflicts of interest to disclose. A.J.M.v.d.E. reports having advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre Fabre. J.W.B.d.G. reports receiving personal fees outside the submitted work from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Novartis. G.A.P.H. reports having consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis and receiving research grants not related to this paper from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Seerave. E.H.W.K. reports having consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, Bayer, Genzyme-Sanofi and receiving research grants not related to this paper from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. K.P.M.S. reports having advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre Fabre. A.A.M.v.d.V. reports having consultancy relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, and Eisai. J.B.A.G.H. reports having advisory relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and receiving research grants not related to this paper from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Neon Therapeutics. 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. Authors have full control of all primary data. They agree to allow the journal to review the data if requested., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cutaneous melanoma is a common type of cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs, 15-39 years of age). However, AYAs are underrepresented in clinical trials investigating new therapies and the outcomes from these therapies for AYAs are therefore unclear. Using prospectively collected nation-wide data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), we compared baseline characteristics, mutational profiles, treatment strategies, grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs), responses and outcomes in AYAs ( n = 210) and older adults ( n = 3775) who were diagnosed with advanced melanoma between July 2013 and July 2018. Compared to older adults, AYAs were more frequently female (51% versus 40%, p = 0.001), and had a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG 0 in 54% versus 45%, p = 0.004). BRAF and NRAS mutations were age dependent, with more BRAF V600 mutations in AYAs (68% versus 46%) and more NRAS mutations in older adults (13% versus 21%), p < 0.001. This finding translated in distinct first-line treatment patterns, where AYAs received more initial targeted therapy. Overall, grade 3-4 AE percentages following first-line systemic treatment were similar for AYAs and older adults; anti-PD-1 (7% versus 14%, p = 0.25), anti-CTLA-4 (16% versus 33%, p = 0.12), anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 (67% versus 56%, p = 0.34) and BRAF/MEK-inhibition (14% versus 23%, p = 0.06). Following anti-CTLA-4 treatment, no AYAs experienced a grade 3-4 colitis, while 17% of the older adults did ( p = 0.046). There was no difference in response to treatment between AYAs and older adults. The longer overall survival observed in AYAs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) was explained by the increased cumulative incidence of non-melanoma related deaths in older adults (sub-distribution HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.5-4.9), calculated by competing risk analysis. The results of our national cohort study show that baseline characteristics and mutational profiles differ between AYAs and older adults with advanced melanoma, leading to different treatment choices made in daily practice. Once treatment is initiated, AYAs and older adults show similar tumor responses and melanoma-specific survival.

Opportunities for surgical treatment in metastatic melanoma patients have re-emerged due to the development of novel systemic therapeutics over the past decade. The aim of this study is to present data on outcomes of surgery in patients with unresectable stage IIIC and IV melanoma, who have previously been treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Data was extracted from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) on 154 patients obtaining disease control to systemic therapy and undergoing subsequent surgery. Disease control was defined as a complete response (CR), which was seen in 3.2% of patients; a partial response (PR), seen in 46.1% of patients; or stable disease (SD), seen in 44.2% of patients. At a median follow-up of 10.0 months (interquartile range 4-22) after surgery, the median overall survival (OS) had not been reached in our cohort and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months (95% CI 6.3-11.7). A CR or PR at first follow-up after surgery was associated with both a better OS and PFS compared to stable or progressive disease ( p < 0.001). We conclude that selected patients can benefit from surgery after achieving disease control with systemic therapy.

Introduction: Although adjuvant therapy is available for melanoma patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases (pN+), this is not the case for thick melanomas without SLN involvement (pN-)., Objectives: We assessed overall and relative survival (OS, RS) in patients with >4.0 mm Breslow thickness (BT) pN- and pN + melanomas and ≤4.0  mm pN+ patients., Materials and Methods: Clinicopathological data were retrieved from a cohort of >4.0 mm thick and/or pN + melanoma patients in The Netherlands from 2000 to 2014. OS and RS was compared using Kaplan-Meier-curves. A Cox-regression-model was developed to assess determinants of OS in >4.0 mm pN- patients., Results: In 54 645 patients, 3940 (7.2%) had >4.0 mm thick melanomas. SLN biopsy was performed in 1150 (29.2%) patients. Five-year OS was 70.5% for >4.0 mm pN- and 48.1% for >4.0  mm pN+ patients (p < 0.001), with a decreasing trend in OS for every mm BT. Five-year OS in 1877 ≤ 4.0  mm pN+ patients was 71.5%, which was not different from >4.0 mm pN- (p = 0.24). Higher age, higher BT category, ulceration and male gender were significantly associated with poor survival in >4.0 mm pN- patients., Conclusions: Thick pN- melanomas have a poor prognosis, comparable to that of less thick pN + melanomas, which is not accounted for in current guidelines. We encourage including these high-risk patients in adjuvant trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Karijn Suijkerbuijk, has a consulting/advisory role and honoraria received (paid to institution) with Novartis, Roche, MSD, BMS and Pierre Fabre. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Unleashing the immune system by PD-1 and/or CTLA-4 blockade can cause severe immune-related toxicity necessitating immunosuppressive treatment. Whether immunosuppression for toxicity impacts survival is largely unknown., Experimental Design: Using data from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), we analyzed the association between severe toxicity and overall survival (OS) in 1,250 patients with advanced melanoma who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in first line between 2012 and 2017. Furthermore, we analyzed whether toxicity management affected survival in these patients., Results: A total of 1,250 patients were included, of whom 589 received anti-PD1 monotherapy, 576 ipilimumab, and 85 combination therapy. A total of 312 patients (25%) developed severe (grade ≥3) toxicity. Patients experiencing severe ICI toxicity had a significantly prolonged survival with a median OS of 23 months compared with 15 months for patients without severe toxicity [hazard ratio (HR adj ) = 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63-0.93]. Among patients experiencing severe toxicity, survival was significantly decreased in patients who received anti-TNF ± steroids for steroid-refractory toxicity compared with patients who were managed with steroids only (HR adj = 1.61; 95% CI, 1.03-2.51), with a median OS of 17 and 27 months, respectively., Conclusions: Patients experiencing severe ICI toxicity have a prolonged OS. However, this survival advantage is abrogated when anti-TNF is administered for steroid-refractory toxicity. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the effect of different immunosuppressive regimens on checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. See related commentary by Weber and Postow, p. 2085 ., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs improved survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. There is, however, a lack of evidence regarding their healthcare costs in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to provide insight into real-world healthcare costs of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Data were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry for patients who were registered between July 2012 and December 2018. Mean total/monthly costs per patient were reported for all patients, patients who did not receive systemic therapy, and patients who received systemic therapy. Furthermore, mean episode/monthly costs per line of therapy and drug were reported for patients who received systemic therapy. Mean total/monthly costs were € 89,240/€ 6809: € 7988/€ 2483 for patients who did not receive systemic therapy ( n = 784) and € 105,078/€ 7652 for patients who received systemic therapy ( n = 4022). Mean episode/monthly costs were the highest for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (€ 79,675/€ 16,976), ipilimumab monotherapy (€ 79,110/€ 17,252), and dabrafenib plus trametinib (€ 77,053/€ 12,015). Dacarbazine yielded the lowest mean episode/monthly costs (€ 6564/€ 2027). Our study showed that immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs had a large impact on real-world healthcare costs. As new drugs continue entering the treatment landscape for (metastatic) melanoma, it remains crucial to monitor whether the benefits of these drugs outweigh their costs.

The prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma has improved dramatically. However, the clinical outcomes of patients with highly elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) remain very poor. The aim of this study was to explore whether patients with normalized LDH after targeted therapy could benefit from subsequent treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Data from all patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma with a highly elevated serum LDH at baseline (≥2× upper limit of normal) receiving first-line targeted therapy between 2012 and 2019 in the Netherlands were collected. Patients were stratified according to response status to targeted therapy and change in LDH at start of subsequent treatment with ICI. Differences in overall survival (OS) between the subgroups were compared using log-rank tests. After a median follow-up of 35.1 months, median OS of the total study population ( n = 360) was 4.9 months (95% CI 4.4-5.4). Of all patients receiving subsequent treatment with ICI ( n = 113), survival from start of subsequent treatment was significantly longer in patients who had normalized LDH and were still responding to targeted therapy compared to those with LDH that remained elevated (median OS 24.7 vs. 1.1 months). Our study suggests that introducing ICI upon response to targeted therapy with normalization of LDH could be an effective strategy in obtaining long-term survival in advanced melanoma patients with initial highly elevated serum LDH., Competing Interests: K.S. has consulting/advisory relationships with BMS and MSD. She received honoraria from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. A.A. has consulting/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, and Merck-Pfizer. He received research funding from Amgen and Novartis. He received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Amgen and Novartis. J.G. has advisory relationships with BMS, MSD, and Roche. G.H. has consulting/advisory relationships with Roche, MSD, BMS, and Novartis. Her institution received research funding from BMS. J.H. provided consultation, attended advisory boards, and/or provided lectures for MSD, BMS, Roche, and Novartis, for which NKI received honoraria. His institution received grant support from BMS and Novartis. A.E. has consulting/advisory relationships with BMS, Roche, MSD, and Novartis. He received a study grant from Roche. R. K. has received speaker fees from BMS, MSD, and Roche. He has advisory relationships with BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. He received research grants from BMS and Roche. E. K. has advisory relationships with BMS, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI, Bayer, and Genzyme-Sanofi (all paid to institution). She received research grants from BMS. The other authors report no conflict of interest. The sponsors had no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or writing of the study.

Purpose: BRAF/MEK inhibition is a standard of care for patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutated metastatic melanoma. For patients with less frequent BRAF mutations, however, efficacy data are limited., Methods: In the current study, 103 patients with metastatic melanoma with rare, activating non-V600E/K BRAF mutations that were treated with either a BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi), MEK inhibitor (MEKi), or the combination were included. BRAF mutation, patient and disease characteristics, response, and survival data were analyzed., Results: Fifty-eight patient tumors (56%) harbored a non-E/K V600 mutation, 38 (37%) a non-V600 mutation, and seven had both V600E and a rare BRAF mutation (7%). The most frequent mutations were V600R (43%; 44 of 103), L597P/Q/R/S (15%; 15 of 103), and K601E (11%; 11 of 103). Most patients had stage IV disease and 42% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase at BRAFi/MEKi initiation. Most patients received combined BRAFi/MEKi (58%) or BRAFi monotherapy (37%). Of the 58 patients with V600 mutations, overall response rate to BRAFi monotherapy and combination BRAFi/MEKi was 27% (six of 22) and 56% (20 of 36), respectively, whereas median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months and 8.0 months, respectively ( P = .002). Of the 38 patients with non-V600 mutations, overall response rate was 0% (zero of 15) to BRAFi, 40% (two of five) to MEKi, and 28% (five of 18) to combination treatment, with a median PFS of 1.8 months versus 3.7 months versus 3.3 months, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed superior survival (PFS and overall survival) with combination over monotherapy in rare V600 and non-V600 mutated melanoma., Conclusion: Patients with rare BRAF mutations can respond to targeted therapy, however, efficacy seems to be lower compared with V600E mutated melanoma. Combination BRAFi/MEKi seems to be the best regimen for both V600 and non-V600 mutations. Yet interpretation should be done with care because of the heterogeneity of patients with small sample sizes for some of the reported mutations.

Background and Purpose: Multiple prognostic models for predicting survival after treatment for brain metastases have been developed. One of them, the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (DS-GPA), has been developed to predict the median survival for brain metastases from the most frequent primary sites: lung carcinoma, breast cancer, melanoma, renal cell cancer and gastrointestinal tumours. In this study we aim to compare the survival predicted by the DS-GPA to actual survival, and to assess this models performance on both population and individual levels., Methods: We identified a consecutive cohort of patients treated with SRS for brain metastases in our institute. DS-GPA scores were calculated for each patient, and the median survival for each DS-GPA group was calculated. Differences in survival between DS-GPA groups were tested with Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests and log-rank tests., Results: In total 367 patients were included in the analysis. Median survival in our cohort is largely comparable to corresponding DS-GPA cohorts, but some notable differences are present. There was a significantly shorter median survival (15.4 months, compared to 26.5 months) in the adenocarcinoma NSCLC subgroup with a GPA score of 2.3-3. We confirmed the significant differences in survival time for most cancer-specific subgroups., Conclusion: DS-GPA seems to be a reliable tool to classify patients with brain metastases treated with SRS into prognostic subgroups. However, we found some aberrations from predicted median survival times, which may be due to specific characteristics of the populations of patients treated with SRS versus other patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, consolidation therapy with durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) has proven to significantly increase both progression free and overall survival after chemoradiotherapy. Here, we describe a case of acute pneumonitis during durvalumab administration for locally advanced NSCLC, causing persistent symptomatology and steroid treatment to date. To our knowledge, acute-onset pneumonitis during infusion of a PD-L1 inhibitor has not been described previously. This case illustrates that ICI-induced pneumonitis can occur anytime during treatment, especially after chemoradiation., Competing Interests: ET: None. AL: Consulting/advisory relationship/Honoraria received (paid to institution): Roche, Astra-Zeneca. JV: None. KS: Consulting/advisory relationship/Honoraria received (paid to institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults. Up to 50% of UM patients will develop metastases. We present data of 175 metastatic UM patients diagnosed in the Netherlands between July 2012 and March 2018. In our cohort, elevated lactate dehydrogenase level (LDH) is an important factor associated with poorer survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 9.0, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 5.63-14.35), and the presence of liver metastases is negatively associated with survival (HR 2.09, 95%CI 1.07-4.08). We used data from the nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) providing a complete overview of the location of metastases at time of stage IV disease. In 154 (88%) patients, the liver was affected, and only 3 patients were reported to have brain metastases. In 63 (36%) patients, mutation analysis was performed, showing a GNA11 mutation in 28.6% and a GNAQ mutation in 49.2% of the analyzed patients. In the absence of standard care of treatment options, metastatic UM patients are often directed to clinical trials. Patients participating in clinical trials are often subject to selection and usually do not represent the entire metastatic UM population. By using our nation-wide cohort, we are able to describe real-life treatment choices made in metastatic UM patients and 1-year survival rates in selected groups of patients.

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.

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 &OV0556;81 484, but varied widely (range: &OV0556;18 131-&OV0556;160 002). Ipilimumab was by far the most important cost driver (&OV0556;73 739). Other costs were related to hospital admissions (&OV0556;3323), hospital visits (&OV0556;1791), diagnostics and imaging (&OV0556;1505), radiotherapy (&OV0556;828), and surgery (&OV0556;297). Monthly costs for resource use other than ipilimumab were &OV0556;1997 (SD: &OV0556;2629). Treatment-naive patients (n=344) had higher total costs compared with previously-treated patients (n=463; &OV0556;85 081 vs. &OV0556;78 811). Although patients with colitis (n=106) had higher costs for resource use other than ipilimumab (&OV0556;11 426) compared with patients with other types of immune-related adverse events (n=90; &OV0556;9850) and patients with no immune-related adverse event (n=611; &OV0556;6796), they had lower total costs (&OV0556;76 075 vs. &OV0556;87 882 and &OV0556;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.

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: In metastatic breast cancer, hormone and/or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapy decision-making is still largely based on tissue characteristics of the primary tumor. However, a change of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 status in distant metastases has frequently been reported. The actual incidence of this phenomenon has been debated., Methods: We performed a meta-analysis including 39 studies assessing receptor conversion from primary breast tumors to paired distant breast cancer metastases. We noted the direction of change (positive to negative or vice versa) and performed subgroup analyses for different thresholds for positivity, the type of test used to assess HER2 receptor status, and metastasis location-specific differences (two-sided tests)., Results: Overall, the incidence of receptor conversion varied largely between studies. For ERα, PR, and HER2, we found that random effects pooled positive to negative conversion percentages of 22.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.4% to 30.0%), 49.4% (95% CI = 40.5% to 58.2%), and 21.3% (95% CI = 14.3% to 30.5%), respectively. Negative to positive conversion percentages were 21.5% (95% CI = 18.1% to 25.5%), 15.9% (95% CI = 11.3% to 22.0%), and 9.5% (95% CI = 7.4% to 12.1%). Furthermore, ERα discordance was statistically significantly higher in the central nervous system and bone compared with liver metastases (20.8%, 95% CI = 15.0% to 28.0%, and 29.3%, 95% CI = 13.0% to 53.5%, vs 14.3%, 95% CI = 11.3% to 18.1, P = .008 and P < .001, respectively), and PR discordance was higher in bone (42.7%, 95% CI = 35.1% to 50.6%, P < .001) and liver metastases (47.0%, 95% CI = 41.0% to 53.0%, P < .001) compared with central nervous system metastases (23.3%, 95% CI = 16.0% to 32.6%)., Conclusions: Receptor conversion for ERα, PR, and HER2 occurs frequently in the course of disease progression in breast cancer. Large prospective studies assessing the impact of receptor conversion on treatment efficacy and survival are needed. Meanwhile, reassessing receptor status in metastases is strongly encouraged.

Background: Despite unprecedented efficacy across multiple tumor types, immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is associated with a unique and wide spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including neurologic events ranging from mild headache to potentially life-threatening encephalitis. Here, we summarize neurologic irAEs associated with nivolumab and ipilimumab melanoma treatment, present cases of treatment-related encephalitis, and provide practical guidance on diagnosis and management., Methods: We searched a Global Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology database for neurologic irAEs reported over an 8-year period in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab with or without ipilimumab from 12 studies sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Serious neurologic irAEs were reviewed, and relationship to nivolumab or ipilimumab was assigned., Results: In our search of 3,763 patients, 35 patients (0.93%) presented with 43 serious neurologic irAEs, including neuropathy ( n  = 22), noninfective meningitis ( n  = 5), encephalitis ( n  = 6), neuromuscular disorders ( n  = 3), and nonspecific adverse events ( n  = 7). Study drug was discontinued ( n  = 20), interrupted ( n  = 8), or unchanged ( n  = 7). Most neurologic irAEs resolved (26/35 patients; 75%). Overall, median time to onset was 45 days (range 1-170) and to resolution was 32 days (2-809+). Median time to onset of encephalitis was 55.5 days (range 18-297); four cases resolved and one was fatal., Conclusion: Both oncologists and neurologists need to be aware of signs and symptoms of serious but uncommon neurologic irAEs associated with checkpoint inhibitors. Prompt diagnosis and management using an established algorithm are critical to minimize serious complications from these neurologic irAEs., Implications for Practice: With increasing use of checkpoint inhibitors in cancer, practicing oncologists need to be aware of the potential risk of neurologic immune-related adverse events and be able to provide prompt treatment of this uncommon, but potentially serious, class of adverse events. We summarize neurologic adverse events related to nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma from 12 studies and examine in depth 6 cases of encephalitis. We also provide input and guidance on the existing neurologic adverse events management algorithm for nivolumab and ipilimumab., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

The need for additional breast cancer screening tools is indisputably high, as one may conclude from the high rate of interval malignancies in women undergoing regular screening. DNA promoter methylation frequently occurs during breast carcinogenesis and is an early event in this process. Moreover, a field defect for methylation has been described and methylation values can reliably be assessed in limited amounts of DNA. Simultaneous detection of methylation of a panel of genes in breast fluids and/or blood derivatives could be both sufficiently specific and sensitive to be of additive value to current imaging-based screening methods. This review describes the recent developments in methylation detection in breast fluids, serum and plasma that paved the way for large prospective studies. These studies will provide us with the definite answer as to what will be the additive value of defining the methylation status of specific genes to current imaging-based screening methods.