Search

Contains fulltext : 292870.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Few clinical trials address efficacy of adjuvant systemic treatment in patients with in-transit melanoma (ITM). This study describes adjuvant systemic therapy of ITM patients beyond clinical trials. In this study, we included stage III adjuvant-treated melanoma patients registered in the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry between July 2018 and December 2020. Patients were divided into three groups: nodal disease only, ITM only and ITM and nodal disease. Recurrence patterns, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) at 12-months were analyzed. In our study population of 1037 patients, 66.8% had nodal disease only, 16.7% had ITM only and 16.2% had ITM with nodal disease. RFS at 12-months was comparable in the nodal only and ITM only group (72.2% vs70.1%, P = .97) but lower in ITM and nodal disease patients (57.8%; P = .01, P

Since the introduction of BRAF(/MEK) inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), the prognosis of advanced melanoma has greatly improved. Melanoma is known for its remarkably long time to first distant recurrence (TFDR), which can be decades in some patients and is partly attributed to immune-surveillance. We investigated the relationship between TFDR and patient outcomes after systemic treatment for advanced melanoma. We selected patients undergoing first-line systemic therapy for advanced melanoma from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The association between TFDR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed by Cox proportional hazard regression models. The TFDR was modeled categorically, linearly, and flexibly using restricted cubic splines. Patients received anti-PD-1-based treatment (n = 1844) or BRAF(/MEK) inhibition (n = 1618). For ICI-treated patients with a TFDR 5 years (P = .014). Patients treated with BRAF(/MEK) inhibition with a longer TFDR also had a significantly longer median OS (8.6 months for TFDR 5 years, P = .004). The hazard of dying rapidly decreased with increasing TFDR until approximately 5 years (HR 0.87), after which the hazard of dying further decreased with increasing TFDR, but less strongly (HR 0.82 for a TFDR of 10 years and HR 0.79 for a TFDR of 15 years). Results were similar when stratifying for type of treatment. Advanced melanoma patients with longer TFDR have a prolonged PFS and OS, irrespective of being treated with first-line ICI or targeted therapy.

Introduction: When analysing patient survival, one is often interested in cause of death. Little is known about the presence of population mortality in advanced melanoma pa-tients. The aim of this study was to assess population mortality after different response states in advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands, and analyse the contribution of disease and population mortality for different age groups.Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2019 with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. A multi-state model with response states integrating population mortality was fitted. One-year landmark an-alyses were performed to assess outcomes after each response state.Results: Overall, 5119 patients were selected. Five-year probabilities of melanoma-related mortality in patients alive in complete response at one year after diagnosis increased with age, and was 17.2% (95% confidence interval: 13.0-21.4) for patients aged 80 years. Population mortality only played a large role for older patients (75 years and above) alive at 1 year after diagnosis with a partial or complete response.Conclusion: Even though survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients have improved over the last decade, the vast majority of patients still die due to melanoma-related mortality. 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

BACKGROUND: A watch & wait strategy for patients with rectal cancer with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a valuable alternative for rectal resection. However, there are patients who will have residual tumor or regrowth during watch & wait.OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate safety and costs for patients who underwent delayed surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data.SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a large teaching hospital.PATIENTS: Between Jan 2015 - May 2020, 622 new rectal cancer patients were seen of which 200 received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Ninety-four patients were included of which 65 patients underwent immediate surgery and 29 patients required delayed surgery after an initial watch & wait approach.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This included 30-day postoperative morbidity rate, hospital costs and two-year overall and disease-free survival.RESULTS: There was no difference in length of stay (9 vs 8, p = 0.83), readmissions (27.6% vs 10.0%, p = 0.10), surgical re-interventions (15.0% vs 3.4%, p = 0.16) and stoma free rate (52.6% vs 31.0%, p = 0.09) between immediate and delayed surgery groups. Hospital costs were similar in the delayed group (€11913 vs €13769, p = 0.89). Two-year overall survival (93% vs 100%, p = 0.23) and disease-free survival (78% vs 81%, p = 0.47) rates were comparable.LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, follow-up time and retrospective design.CONCLUSION: Delayed surgery for regrowth in a watch & wait program or for persistent residual disease after a repeated assessment is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity or a significant rise in costs compared to immediate total mesorectal excision. There also appears to be no evident compromise in oncological outcome. Repeated response assessment in patients with a near complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a useful approach to identify more patients who can benefit from a watch & wait strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B836 .

PURPOSE Combination treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has demonstrated benefits on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and is a standard of care for the treatment of advanced BRAF V600–mutant melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year update from the COLUMBUS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01909453 ). METHODS Patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600–mutant melanoma, untreated or progressed after first-line immunotherapy, were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily. An updated analysis was conducted 65 months after the last patient was randomly assigned. RESULTS Five hundred seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned: 192 to encorafenib plus binimetinib, 191 to vemurafenib, and 194 to encorafenib. The 5-year PFS and OS rates with encorafenib plus binimetinib were 23% and 35% overall and 31% and 45% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. In comparison, the 5-year PFS and OS rates with vemurafenib were 10% and 21% overall and 12% and 28% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. The median duration of response with encorafenib plus binimetinib was 18.6 months, with disease control achieved in 92.2% of patients. In comparison, the median duration of response with vemurafenib was 12.3 months, with disease control achieved in 81.2% of patients. Long-term follow-up showed no new safety concerns, and results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at COLUMBUS dashboard. CONCLUSION In this 5-year update of part 1 of the COLUMBUS trial, encorafenib plus binimetinib treatment demonstrated continued long-term benefits and a consistent safety profile in patients with BRAF V600–mutant melanoma.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable benefit. Phase 1-2 trials of adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have shown promising responses, but data from phase 3 trials are lacking to determine the role of TILs in treating advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive TIL or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 therapy (ipilimumab at 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). Infusion of at least 5×10(9) TILs was preceded by nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine) and followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (86% with disease refractory to anti-programmed death 1 treatment) were assigned to receive TILs (84 patients) or ipilimumab (84 patients). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 13.1) in the TIL group and 3.1 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.3) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72; P

Contains fulltext : 293454.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma that develop brain metastases (BM) remains unpredictable. In this study, we aimed to identify prognostic factors in patients with melanoma BM who are treated with ICIs. Data from advanced melanoma patients with BM treated with ICIs in any line between 2013 and 2020 were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were included from the time of the treatment of BM with ICIs. Survival tree analysis was performed with clinicopathological parameters as potential classifiers and overall survival (OS) as the response variable. In total, 1278 patients were included. Most patients were treated with ipilimumab-nivolumab combination therapy (45%). The survival tree analysis resulted in 31 subgroups. The median OS ranged from 2.7 months to 35.7 months. The strongest clinical parameter associated with survival in advanced melanoma patients with BM was the serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level. Patients with elevated LDH levels and symptomatic BM had the worst prognosis. The clinicopathological classifiers identified in this study can contribute to optimizing clinical studies and can aid doctors in giving an indication of the patients' survival based on their baseline and disease characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: The RECOURSE trial demonstrated a modest benefit in overall survival (OS) for trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) versus placebo in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Unfortunately, quality of life (QoL) was not assessed. We evaluated QoL and survival of patients treated with FTD/TPI in daily practice.PATIENTS AND METHODS: QUALITAS is a substudy of the Prospective Dutch CRC cohort (PLCRC). From 150 mCRC patients treated with FTD/TPI, QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29) was assessed monthly from study entry, and linked to clinical data of the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Joint models were constructed combining mixed effects models with Cox PH models. Primary endpoint was difference in QoL over time (which was deemed clinically relevant if ≥10 points). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and OS. We analyzed the association between QLQ-C30 Summary Score (QoL-SS) at FTD/TPI initiation (baseline) and survival.RESULTS: There was no clinically relevant change in QoL-SS from baseline to 10 months post-baseline (i.e. the cut-off point after which 90% of patients had discontinued FTD/TPI treatment): -5.3 [95% CI -8.7;-1.5]. Patients who were treated with FTD/TPI for ≥ 3 months (n = 85) reported 6.3 [1.6;11.1] points higher baseline QoL, compared to patients treated < 3 months (n = 65, "poor responders"). In the latter, time to a clinically relevant QoL deterioration was < 2 months. Median PFS, TTF and OS were 2.9 [2.7;3.1], 3.1 [2.9;3.2] and 7.7 [6.6;8.8] months, respectively. Worse baseline QoL-SS was independently associated with shorter OS (HR 0.45 [0.32;0.63]), PFS (0.63 [0.48;0.83]), and TTF (0.64 [0.47;0.86]).CONCLUSION: The maintenance of QoL during FTD/TPI treatment in daily practice supports its use. The QoL deterioration in "poor responders" is likely due to disease progression. The strong association between worse baseline QoL and shorter survival suggests that clinicians should take QoL into account when determining prognosis and treatment strategy for individual patients.

Suppl. tab. S1 | Multivariable Cox regression of baseline factors associated with overall survival in all first-line checkpoint inhibitor treated patients Suppl. tab. S2 | Multivariable Cox regression of baseline factors associated with overall survival in first-line checkpoint inhibitor treated patients experiencing severe immune related adverse events managed with immunosuppression

Supplementary Figure from Patients with Rare Cancers in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) Benefit from Genomics-Guided Treatment

Purpose:Patients with rare cancers (incidence less than 6 cases per 100,000 persons per year) commonly have less treatment opportunities and are understudied at the level of genomic targets. We hypothesized that patients with rare cancer benefit from approved anticancer drugs outside their label similar to common cancers.Experimental Design:In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with therapy-refractory metastatic cancers harboring an actionable molecular profile are matched to FDA/European Medicines Agency–approved targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Patients are enrolled in parallel cohorts based on the histologic tumor type, molecular profile and study drug. Primary endpoint is clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥ 16 weeks).Results:Of 1,145 submitted cases, 500 patients, including 164 patients with rare cancers, started one of the 25 available drugs and were evaluable for treatment outcome. The overall clinical benefit rate was 33% in both the rare cancer and nonrare cancer subgroup. Inactivating alterations of CDKN2A and activating BRAF aberrations were overrepresented in patients with rare cancer compared with nonrare cancers, resulting in more matches to CDK4/6 inhibitors (14% vs. 4%; P ≤ 0.001) or BRAF inhibitors (9% vs. 1%; P ≤ 0.001). Patients with rare cancer treated with small-molecule inhibitors targeting BRAF experienced higher rates of clinical benefit (75%) than the nonrare cancer subgroup.Conclusions:Comprehensive molecular testing in patients with rare cancers may identify treatment opportunities and clinical benefit similar to patients with common cancers. Our findings highlight the importance of access to broad molecular diagnostics to ensure equal treatment opportunities for all patients with cancer.

Supplementary Table from Patients with Rare Cancers in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) Benefit from Genomics-Guided Treatment

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 (HRadj) = 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 (HRadj = 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

Background In this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab across various mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumours in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). This is a clinical study in which patients are treated with drugs outside their labeled indication, based on their tumour molecular profile. Patients and methods Patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours who had exhausted all standard of care options were eligible. Patients were treated with durvalumab. The primary endpoints were clinical benefit ((CB): objective response (OR) or stable disease ≥16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1, up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1/8 patients had CB in stage 1. At baseline, fresh frozen biopsies were obtained for biomarker analyses. Results Twenty-six patients with 10 different cancer types were included. Two patients (2/26, 8%) were considered as non-evaluable for the primary endpoint. CB was observed in 13 patients (13/26, 50%) with an OR in 7 patients (7/26, 27%). The remaining 11 patients (11/26, 42%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 5 months (95% CI, 2-not reached) and 14 months (95% CI, 5-not reached), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed. We found a significantly higher structural variant (SV) burden in patients without CB. Additionally, we observed a significant enrichment of JAK1 frameshift mutations and a significantly lower IFN-γ expression in patients without CB. Conclusion Durvalumab was generally well-tolerated and provided durable responses in pre-treated patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours. High SV burden, JAK1 frameshift mutations and low IFN-γ expression were associated with a lack of CB; this provides a rationale for larger studies to validate these findings. Trial registration Clinical trial registration: NCT02925234. First registration date: 05/10/2016.

Background: Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterized by a poor survival rate, which can be improved by systemic treatment. Consensus on the most optimal first- and second-line palliative systemic treatment is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the use of first- and second-line systemic treatment, overall survival (OS), and time to failure (TTF) of first- and second-line treatment in metastatic PDAC in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods: Patients with synchronous metastatic PDAC diagnosed between 2015 and 2018 who received systemic treatment were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS and TTF were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses. Results: The majority of 1,586 included patients received FOLFIRINOX (65%), followed by gemcitabine (18%), and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (13%) in the first line. Median OS for first-line FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, and gemcitabine monotherapy was 6.6, 4.7, and 2.9 months, respectively. Compared to FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel showed significantly inferior OS after adjustment for confounders (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02–1.41), and gemcitabine monotherapy was independently associated with a shorter OS and TTF (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.71–2.30 and HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.88–2.83, respectively). Of the 121 patients who received second-line systemic treatment, 33% received gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, followed by gemcitabine (31%) and FOLFIRINOX (10%). Conclusions: Based on population-based data in patients with metastatic PDAC, treatment predominantly consists of FOLFIRINOX in the first line and gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel in the second line. FOLFIRINOX in the first line shows superior OS compared with gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel.

Background: Recent reports suggest the limited efficacy of immune checkpoints inhibitors in advanced acral melanoma (AM). This study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with stage III and IV AM and compare them to cutaneous melanoma (CM). Methods: We included patients with advanced AM and CM treated with first-line anti -programmed cell death (PD)-1 monotherapy or ipilimumab-nivolumab registered in the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Objective response rates, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the prognostic factors with PFS and OS. Results: In total, 2058 patients (88 AM and 1970 CM) with advanced melanoma were included. First-line objective response rates were 34% for AM versus 54% for CM in the advanced anti-PD-1 cohort and 33% for AM versus 53% for CM in the advanced ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort. The Median PFS was significantly shorter for anti-PD-1 treated AM patients (3.1 months; 95%CI: 2.8-5.6) than patients with CM (10.1 months; 95%CI: 8.5-12.2) (P < 0.001). In patients with advanced melanoma, AM was significantly associated with a higher risk of progression (HRadj 1.63; 95%CI: 1.26-2.11 ; P < 0.001) and death (HRadj 1.54; 95%CI: 1.15-2.06; P Z 0.004) than CM. Conclusions: This study shows lower effectiveness of anti-PD-1 monotherapy and ipilimumab-nivolumab in AM, with lower response rates, PFS and OS than CM. This group of patients should be prioritised in the development of alternative treatment strategies. 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Purpose: Patients with rare cancers (incidence less than 6 cases per 100,000 persons per year) commonly have less treatment opportunities and are understudied at the level of genomic targets. We hypothesized that patients with rare cancer benefit from approved anticancer drugs outside their label similar to common cancers. Experimental Design: In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with therapy-refractory metastatic cancers harboring an actionable molecular profile are matched to FDA/European Medicines Agency–approved targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Patients are enrolled in parallel cohorts based on the histologic tumor type, molecular profile and study drug. Primary endpoint is clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥ 16 weeks). Results: Of 1,145 submitted cases, 500 patients, including 164 patients with rare cancers, started one of the 25 available drugs and were evaluable for treatment outcome. The overall clinical benefit rate was 33% in both the rare cancer and nonrare cancer subgroup. Inactivating alterations of CDKN2A and activating BRAF aberrations were overrepresented in patients with rare cancer compared with nonrare cancers, resulting in more matches to CDK4/6 inhibitors (14% vs. 4%; P ≤ 0.001) or BRAF inhibitors (9% vs. 1%; P ≤ 0.001). Patients with rare cancer treated with small-molecule inhibitors targeting BRAF experienced higher rates of clinical benefit (75%) than the nonrare cancer subgroup. Conclusions: Comprehensive molecular testing in patients with rare cancers may identify treatment opportunities and clinical benefit similar to patients with common cancers. Our findings highlight the importance of access to broad molecular diagnostics to ensure equal treatment opportunities for all patients with cancer.

Contains fulltext : 287666.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) There is no consensus on the optimal treatment duration of anti-PD-1 for advanced melanoma. The aim of our study was to gain insight into the outcomes of anti-PD-1 discontinuation, the association of treatment duration with progression and anti-PD-1 re-treatment in relapsing patients. Analyses were performed on advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands who discontinued first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the absence of progressive disease (n = 324). Survival was estimated after anti-PD-1 discontinuation and with a Cox model the association of treatment duration with progression was assessed. At the time of anti-PD-1 discontinuation, 90 (28%) patients had a complete response (CR), 190 (59%) a partial response (PR) and 44 (14%) stable disease (SD). Median treatment duration for patients with CR, PR and SD was 11.2, 11.5 and 7.2 months, respectively. The 24-month progression-free survival and overall survival probabilities for patients with a CR, PR and SD were, respectively, 64% and 88%, 53% and 82%, 31% and 64%. Survival outcomes of patients with a PR and CR were similar when anti-PD-1 discontinuation was not due to adverse events. Having a PR at anti-PD-1 discontinuation and longer time to first response were associated with progression [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.81 (95% confidence interval, CI = 1.11-2.97) and HR = 1.10 (95% CI = 1.02-1.19; per month increase)]. In 17 of the 27 anti-PD-1 re-treated patients (63%), a response was observed. Advanced melanoma patients can have durable remissions after (elective) anti-PD-1 discontinuation.

The COVID‐19 pandemic had a severe impact on medical care. Our study aims to investigate the impact of COVID‐19 on advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands. We selected patients diagnosed with irresectable stage IIIc and IV melanoma during the first and second COVID‐19 wave and compared them with patients diagnosed within the same time frame in 2018 and 2019. Patients were divided into three geographical regions. We investigated baseline characteristics, time from diagnosis until start of systemic therapy and postponement of anti‐PD‐1 courses. During both waves, fewer patients were diagnosed compared to the control groups. During the first wave, time between diagnosis and start of treatment was significantly longer in the southern region compared to other regions (33 vs 9 and 15 days, P‐value, What's new? Little is known about the effects of COVID‐19 on advanced melanoma care. In this study, the authors examined several quality indicators of care. They observed a worsening in baseline characteristics, longer time between diagnosis and start of treatment and more postponed anti‐PD‐1 antibody courses with differences between the northern, middle and southern regions. Future studies are necessary to assess the long‐term consequences of our observed changes in advanced melanoma care.

PURPOSE: The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies improved the overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma. It is not known how often these costly treatments with potential serious side effects are ineffectively applied in the last phase of life. This study aimed to investigate the start of a new systemic therapy within 45 and 90 days of death in Dutch patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: We selected patients who were diagnosed with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, and died between 2013 and 2019. Primary outcome was the probability of starting a new systemic therapy 45 and 90 days before death. Secondary outcomes were type of systemic therapy started, grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), and the total costs of systemic therapies. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2019, 3,797 patients with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma were entered in the registry and died. The percentage of patients receiving a new systemic therapy within 45 and 90 days before death was significantly different between Dutch melanoma centers (varying from 6% to 23% and 20% to 46%, respectively). Thirteen percent of patients (n = 146) developed grade 3/4 AEs in the last period before death. The majority of patients with an AE required hospital admission (n = 102, 69.6%). Mean total costs of systemic therapy per cohort year of the patients who received a new systemic therapy within 90 days before death were 2.3%-2.8% of the total costs spent on melanoma therapies. CONCLUSION: The minority of Dutch patients with metastatic melanoma started a new systemic therapy in the last phase of life. However, the percentages varied between Dutch melanoma centers. Financial impact of these therapies in the last phase of life is relatively small.

Item does not contain fulltext 01 januari 2023

Contains fulltext : 291650.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) INTRODUCTION: Predicting checkpoint inhibitors treatment outcomes in melanoma is a relevant task, due to the unpredictable and potentially fatal toxicity and high costs for society. However, accurate biomarkers for treatment outcomes are lacking. Radiomics are a technique to quantitatively capture tumour characteristics on readily available computed tomography (CT) imaging. The purpose of this study was to investigate the added value of radiomics for predicting clinical benefit from checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma in a large, multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients who received first-line anti-PD1±anti-CTLA4 treatment for advanced cutaneous melanoma were retrospectively identified from nine participating hospitals. For every patient, up to five representative lesions were segmented on baseline CT, and radiomics features were extracted. A machine learning pipeline was trained on the radiomics features to predict clinical benefit, defined as stable disease for more than 6 months or response per RECIST 1.1 criteria. This approach was evaluated using a leave-one-centre-out cross validation and compared to a model based on previously discovered clinical predictors. Lastly, a combination model was built on the radiomics and clinical model. RESULTS: A total of 620 patients were included, of which 59.2% experienced clinical benefit. The radiomics model achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.607 [95% CI, 0.562-0.652], lower than that of the clinical model (AUROC=0.646 [95% CI, 0.600-0.692]). The combination model yielded no improvement over the clinical model in terms of discrimination (AUROC=0.636 [95% CI, 0.592-0.680]) or calibration. The output of the radiomics model was significantly correlated with three out of five input variables of the clinical model (p

Simple Summary BRAF/MEK therapy and anti-PD-1 therapy have shown better recurrence-free survival of stage III melanoma in patients with BRAF V600 mutations in clinical trials. However, little is known about how these therapies compare to each other in everyday practice. The aim of our study was to describe the toxicity and survival of patients treated with BRAF/MEK therapy and anti-PD-1 therapy in daily practice. We demonstrated that grade >= 3 toxicity occurred in 11.5% of patients and was the most common cause of early treatment discontinuation (71.1%). We also show that at 12 months, patients treated with BRAF/MEK therapy have less progression than those treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. However, this is no longer the case at 18 months. Adjuvant BRAF/MEK- and anti-PD-1 inhibition have significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to placebo in resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. However, data beyond the clinical trial setting are limited. This study describes the toxicity and survival of patients treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEK inhibitors and compares outcomes to adjuvant anti-PD-1. For this study, stage III BRAF V600 mutant cutaneous melanoma patients treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEK-inhibition or anti-PD-1 were identified from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. BRAF/MEK- and anti-PD-1-treated patients were matched based on propensity scores, and RFS at 12 and 18 months were estimated. Between 1 July 2018 and 31 December 2021, 717 patients were identified. Of these, 114 patients with complete records were treated with BRAF/MEK therapy and 532 with anti-PD-1. Comorbidities (p = 0.04) and geographical region (p < 0.01) were associated with treatment choice. In 45.6% of BRAF/MEK-treated patients, treatment was prematurely discontinued. Grade >= 3 toxicity occurred in 11.5% of patients and was the most common cause of early discontinuation (71.1%). At 12 and 18 months, RFS in BRAF/MEK-treated patients was 85% and 70%, compared to 68% and 68% in matched anti-PD-1-treated patients (p = 0.03). In conclusion, comorbidities and geographical region determine the choice of adjuvant treatment in patients with resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. With the currently limited follow-up, BRAF/MEK-treated patients have better RFS at 12 months than matched anti-PD-1-treated patients, but this difference is no longer observed at 18 months. Therefore, longer follow-up data are necessary to estimate long-term effectiveness.

Treatment with targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors has significantly improved survival of patients with advanced melanoma. Unfortunately, a large proportion of patients are either primary non-responders or will eventually develop secondary resistance. In 2017, Nosrati and colleagues published a prediction scale in the British Journal of Cancer, which included five clinical parameters that were associated with lower response to anti-PD-1 treatment; female sex (1 point), age 1]. This study used a derivation cohort of 228 patients treated in California, and a validation cohort of 87 patients treated in Switzerland. The primary outcome measure was best tumour response to treatment evaluated using computed tomography at 12 and 16 weeks after the first administration of anti-PD-1 monotherapy, and every 12 weeks thereafter. The aim of this correspondence is to validate the prediction scale, published by Nosrati and colleagues.

Simple Summary Nodular melanoma is associated with a higher locoregional recurrence rate and worse overall survival outcomes. Whether this histologic subtype affects the efficacy of immunotherapy or targeted therapy is unclear. The aim of our multi-center nationwide study is to identify the efficacy of immunotherapy and BRAF/MEKi therapy in metastatic nodular melanoma compared with the efficacy in metastatic superficial spreading melanoma. Our study results demonstrate no difference between the effectiveness of immunotherapy and BRAF/MEKi in metastatic nodular versus superficial melanoma patients. A shorter distant metastasis-free survival and reduced overall survival (measured as the time between primary melanoma up to death or last follow-up) was observed in the nodular melanoma patient group, suggesting worse overal survival of nodular melanoma is mainly driven by propensity of metastatic outgrowth of nodular melanoma after primary diagnosis. Nodular melanoma (NM) is associated with a higher locoregional and distant recurrence rate compared with superficial spreading melanoma (SSM); it is unknown whether the efficacy of systemic therapy is limited. Here, we compare the efficacy of immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) in advanced NM to SSM. Patients with advanced stage IIIc and stage IV NM and SSM treated with anti-CTLA-4 and/or anti-PD-1, or BRAF/MEKi in the first line, were included from the prospective Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The primary objectives were distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). In total, 1086 NM and 2246 SSM patients were included. DMFS was significantly shorter for advanced NM patients at 1.9 years (CI 95% 0.7-4.2) compared with SSM patients at 3.1 years (CI 95% 1.3-6.2) (p < 0.01). Multivariate survival analysis for immunotherapy and BRAF/MEKi demonstrated a hazard ratio for immunotherapy of 1.0 (CI 95% 0.85-1.17) and BRAF/MEKi of 0.95 (CI 95% 0.81-1.11). A shorter DMFS for NM patients developing advanced disease compared with SSM patients was observed, while no difference was observed in the efficacy of systemic immunotherapy or BRAF/MEKi between NM and SSM patients. Our results suggests that the worse overall survival of NM is mainly driven by propensity of metastatic outgrowth of NM after primary diagnosis.

ImportanceManagement of checkpoint inhibitor–induced immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is primarily based on expert opinion. Recent studies have suggested detrimental effects of anti–tumor necrosis factor on checkpoint-inhibitor efficacy.ObjectiveTo determine the association of toxic effect management with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab combination therapy.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis population-based, multicenter cohort study included patients with advanced melanoma experiencing grade 3 and higher irAEs after treatment with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab between 2015 and 2021. Data were collected from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Median follow-up was 23.6 months.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe PFS, OS, and MSS were analyzed according to toxic effect management regimen. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess factors associated with PFS and OS.ResultsOf 771 patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab, 350 patients (median [IQR] age, 60.0 [51.0-68.0] years; 206 [58.9%] male) were treated with immunosuppression for severe irAEs. Of these patients, 235 received steroids alone, and 115 received steroids with second-line immunosuppressants. Colitis and hepatitis were the most frequently reported types of toxic effects. Except for type of toxic effect, no statistically significant differences existed at baseline. Median PFS was statistically significantly longer for patients treated with steroids alone compared with patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (11.3 [95% CI, 9.6-19.6] months vs 5.4 [95% CI, 4.5-12.4] months; P = .01). Median OS was also statistically significantly longer for the group receiving steroids alone compared with those receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (46.1 months [95% CI, 39.0 months-not reached (NR)] vs 22.5 months [95% CI, 36.5 months-NR]; P = .04). Median MSS was also better in the group receiving steroids alone compared with the group receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (NR [95% CI, 46.1 months-NR] vs 28.8 months [95% CI, 20.5 months-NR]; P = .006). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants showed a trend toward a higher risk of progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00-1.97]; P = .05) and had a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.03-2.30]; P = .04) compared with those receiving steroids alone.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, second-line immunosuppression for irAEs was associated with impaired PFS, OS, and MSS in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab. These findings stress the importance of assessing the effects of differential irAE management strategies, not only in patients with melanoma but also other tumor types.

Contains fulltext : 232046.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 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.

Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is considered different from melanoma of known primary (MKP), and it is unclear whether these patients benefit equally from novel therapies. In the current study, characteristics and overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced and metastatic MUP and MKP were compared in the era of novel therapy. Patients were selected from the prospective nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR). The following criteria were applied: diagnosis of stage IIIc unresectable or IV cutaneous MKP (cMKP) or MUP between July 2012 and July 2017 and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition and/or targeted therapy. OS was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. The stratified multivariable Cox regression model was used for adjusted analysis. A total of 2706 patients were eligible including 2321 (85.8%) patients with cMKP and 385 (14.2%) with MUP. In comparative analysis, MUP patients more often presented with advanced and metastatic disease at primary diagnosis with poorer performance status, higher LDH, and central nervous system metastases. In crude analysis, median OS of cMKP or MUP patients was 12 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5 – 44) and 14 months (IQR 5 – not reached), respectively (P = 0.278). In adjusted analysis, OS in MUP patients was superior (hazard rate 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.58–0.85; P

If Colorectal cancer (CRC) is detected and treated early, the survival rate is high. This is one of the reasons that population-based screening programs for the early detection of CRC using the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) started worldwide. These programs compete with regular colonoscopy programs and increase the waiting time for symptomatic patients. However, the literature has shown that the correlation between intestinal complaints and the gain of colonoscopy is poor. The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic utility of symptoms for the yield (CRC) of colonoscopy and to compare this with the diagnostic utility of FIT when offered to symptomatic patients. Methods: We performed a systematic review search for CRC as an outcome of colonoscopy in referred symptomatic patients and separately for CRC as an outcome in symptomatic patients with a positive FIT. We searched systematically for clinical trials or observational studies in databases, followed by hand-searching of reference lists. We used random Meta-Disc to evaluate the diagnostic performance, using the exploration of heterogeneity with a variety of test statistics and by computing the pooled estimates. Results: We included 35 studies, with almost 5 million symptomatic patients. In addition, we included nine prospective studies with a positive FIT in symptomatic patients, with more than 5000 patients. Significant heterogeneity was found for every symptom and the outcome of colonoscopy in the effect size of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio. In a random effect model, the pooled sensitivity of colonoscopy in symptomatic patients was very low (25%). However, the pooled sensitivity in symptomatic patients with a positive FIT was 83% and the pooled specificity 77%. A total of 75 symptomatic patients (1.4%) had a false-negative FIT. Conclusion: Adding FIT in symptomatic patients seems useful for predicting CRC as an outcome of colonoscopy. FIT seems a potential tool for an improved triage of colonoscopy in symptomatic patients.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01312-1

BackgroundBiological sex, gender and age have an impact on the incidence and outcome in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study is to investigate whether biological sex, gender and age are associated with treatment allocation and overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in a nationwide cohort.MethodsPatients with synchronous metastatic pancreatic cancer diagnosed between 2015 and 2019 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). The association between biological sex and the probability of receiving systemic treatment were examined with multivariable logistic regression analyses. Kaplan Meier analyses with log-rank test were used to describe OS.ResultsA total of 7470 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer were included in this study. Fourty-eight percent of patients were women. Women received less often systemic treatment (26% vs. 28%, P=0.03), as compared to men. Multivariable logistic regression analyses with adjustment for confounders showed that women ≤55 years of age, received more often systemic treatment (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.24-2.68) compared to men of the same age group. In contrast, women at >55 years of age had a comparable probability to receive systemic treatment compared to men of the same age groups. After adjustment for confounders, women had longer OS compared to men (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.93).ConclusionThis study found that women in general had a lower probability of receiving systemic treatment compared to men, but this can mainly be explained by age differences. Women had better OS compared to men after adjustment for confounders.

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. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: Positive results of randomized trials led to the introduction of FOLFIRINOX in 2012 and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel in 2015 for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. It is unknown to which extent these new chemotherapeutic regimens have been implemented in clinical practice and what the impact has been on overall survival. Material and methods: Patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2007–2016 were included from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Multilevel logistic regression and Cox regression analyses, adjusting for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics, were used to analyze variation of chemotherapy use. Results: In total, 8726 patients were included. The use of chemotherapy increased from 31% in 2007–2011 to 37% in 2012–2016 (p

Background: A relationship between quality of life (QoL) and survival has been shown for several types of cancer, mostly in clinical trials with highly selected patient groups. The relationship between QoL and survival for patients with pancreatic or periampullary cancer is unclear. Methods: This study analyzed QoL data from a prospective multicenter patient-reported outcome registry in patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma registered in the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015–2018). Baseline and delta QoL, between baseline and 3-month follow-up, were assessed with the Happiness, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), and QLQ-PAN26 questionnaires. The relationship between QoL and survival was assessed using Cox regression models, and additional prognostic value of separate items was assessed using Nagelkerke R2 (explained variance). Results: For the baseline and delta analyses, 233 and 148 patients were available, respectively. Most were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=194; 83.3%) and had stage III disease (n=77; 33.0%), with a median overall survival of 13.6 months. Multivariate analysis using baseline scores indicated several scales to be of prognostic value for the total cohort (ie, happiness today, role functioning, diarrhea, pancreatic pain, and body image; hazard ratios all PP5% of the additional explained variance and were of added prognostic value. Multivariate analysis using delta QoL revealed that only constipation was of prognostic value for the total cohort, whereas no association with survival was found for subgroups with or without resection. Conclusions: In a multicenter cohort of patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma, QoL scores predicted survival regardless of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. QoL scores may thus be used for shared decision-making regarding disease management and treatment choice.

Contains fulltext : 225250.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 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.

PURPOSE Little is known about the effect of specific gene mutations on efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line anti–PD-1 or ipilimumab-nivolumab between 2012 and 2021 in the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were included in this cohort study. Objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed according to BRAF and NRAS status. A multivariable Cox model was used to analyze prognostic factors associated with PFS and OS. RESULTS In total, 1764 patients received anti–PD-1 and 759 received ipilimumab-nivolumab. No significant differences in PFS were found in the anti–PD-1 cohort. In the ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort, median PFS was significantly higher for BRAF-mutant melanoma (9.9 months; 95% CI, 6.8 to 17.2) compared with NRAS-mutant (4.8 months; 95% CI, 3.0 to 7.5) and double wild-type (5.3 months; 95% CI, 3.6 to 7.1). In multivariable analysis, BRAF-mutant melanoma was significantly associated with a lower risk of progression or death in the ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort. Median OS was significantly higher for BRAF-mutant melanoma compared with NRAS-mutant and double wild-type melanoma for both immune checkpoint inhibitor regimens. CONCLUSION Ipilimumab-nivolumab–treated patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma display improved PFS and OS compared with patients with NRAS-mutant and double wild-type melanoma. BRAF mutation status is a factor to consider while choosing between mono and dual checkpoint inhibition in advanced melanoma.

Purpose: To perform a scoping review on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in randomized trials on systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between 2010 and 2021. Methods: First, a search on clinicaltrials.gov was performed, looking for randomized trials in mCRC. The use of PROMs was analyzed quantitatively. Subsequently, we assessed the completeness of PROM reporting based on the CONSORT PRO extension in publications related to the selected trials acquired using Embase and PubMed. Results: A total of 46/176 trials were registered on clinicaltrials.gov used PROMs. All these trials used validated PROM instruments. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (37 times), followed by the EQ-5D (21 times) and the EORTC QLQ-CR29 (six times). A total of 56/176 registered trials were published. In 35% (n = 20), the results of the PROMs were available. Overall, 7/20 (35%) trials documented all items of the CONSORT PRO extension and quality of reporting according to the CONSORT PRO extension was higher than in the period 2004–2012. In 3/20 (15%) of the published trials, the results of PROMs were not discussed nor included in the positioning of the new treatment compared to the reference treatment. Conclusion: When PROMs are used, the quality of reporting on patient-reported outcomes is improving, but this must continue in order to optimize the translation of trial results to individual patient values.

Background The aim of this nationwide cohort study was to examine the course of symptoms and trajectories of health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and psychological distress during follow-up and to identify vulnerable patients. Methods Patients with pathological stage I–III colorectal cancer (CRC) between 2013 and 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30/CR29, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaires at the baseline and subsequently at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Latent class growth and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to outline 24-month trajectories in HR-QoL and distress and to identify predictive factors. Results : A total of 1535 patients with colon cancer or rectal cancer were included. Trajectory analysis of HR-QoL identified three patient classes: high HR-QoL (62.7%), improving HR-QoL (29.0%) and low HR-QoL (8.3%). The following patient groups were identified with having low distress (64.0%), moderate distress (26.9%) and high distress (9.1%). Around 13% of the total cohort had either persistent low HR-QoL or high psychological distress throughout follow-up. Patients belonging to this vulnerable group were significantly more likely to be female, to be younger aged, to have lower education, to have disease stage II–III or to have major LARS. Conclusions Although most patients treated for stage I–III CRC fared well, a small but significant proportion of around 13% did not recover during follow-up and reported low HR-QoL and/or high psychological distress levels throughout. This study's findings should be taken into account when organising and selecting patients for tailored follow-up.

Simple Summary: The survival of advanced melanoma patients has improved significantly over the last decade due to the introduction of new systemic therapies. It is unknown whether survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients differ between melanoma centers in the Netherlands. This research aimed to assess center variation in treatments and 2-year survival probabilities of advanced melanoma patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in the Netherlands. Significant center variation in 2-year survival probabilities of patients diagnosed in 2014-2015 was observed after correcting for case-mix and treatment with new systemic therapies. The different use of new systemic therapies partially explained the observed variation. From 2016 onwards, no significant difference in 2-year survival was observed between centers. This study shows the added value of quality monitoring with a national registry that enables the study of variation between centers.Background: To assure a high quality of care for patients treated in Dutch melanoma centers, hospital variation in treatment patterns and outcomes is evaluated in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The aim of this study was to assess center variation in treatments and 2-year survival probabilities of patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in the Netherlands. Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Centers' performance on 2-year survival was evaluated using Empirical Bayes estimates calculated in a random effects model. Treatment patterns of the centers with the lowest and highest estimates for 2-year survival were compared. Results: For patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2015, significant center variation in 2-year survival probabilities was observed even after correcting for case-mix and treatment with new systemic therapies. The different use of new systemic therapies partially explained the observed variation. From 2016 onwards, no significant difference in 2-year survival was observed between centers. Conclusion: Our data suggest that between 2014 and 2015, after correcting for patient case-mix, significant variation in 2-year survival probabilities between Dutch melanoma centers existed. The use of new systemic therapies could partially explain this variation. In 2013 and between 2016 and 2017, no significant variation between centers existed.

Background: The incidence of metastatic melanoma is increasing in all ages. Multiple trials with targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors showed improved survival in metastatic melanoma. However, patients aged >_75 years are often under-represented in clinical trials, therefore raising questions on safety and efficacy of treatment. Patients and methods: We analyzed a real-world cohort of 3054 patients with metastatic melanoma stratified for age (_ 75 years), and BRAF status, providing data on treatment strategies, toxicity, and survival. Kaplan Meier curves and Cox Proportional Hazard Models were used to present overall survival (OS) and Melanoma Specific Survival (MSS). Results: Overall, 52.2% of patients were _75 years. BRAF mutated tumors were found less often in patients >_75 years: 34.5% versus 65% in patients _75 years received systemic therapy less frequently compared to their younger counterparts independent of the BRAF status. When receiving treatment, no statistical significant difference in grade 3 or 4 toxicity was observed. Three year Overall Survival rate was 13.7% (9.1-19.3) in patients >_75 years versus 26.7% (23.1-30.4) in patients _75 years are less frequently treated, but when treated there is no statistical significant increase in toxicity and only a borderline statistical significant difference in Melanoma Specific Survival was seen, compared to younger patients. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Background:Biomarkers predicting treatment response may be used to stratify pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients for therapy. The aim of this study was to identify circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) mutations that associate with tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, and overall survival (OS).Methods:Circulating cell-free DNA was analyzed with a 57 gene next-generation sequencing panel using plasma samples of 48 PDAC patients of all disease stages. Patients received FOLFIRINOX as initial treatment. Chemotherapy response was determined on CT scans as disease control ( n = 30) or progressive disease ( n = 18) within eight cycles of FOLFIRINOX, based on RECIST 1.1 criteria.Results:Detection of a TP53 ctDNA mutation before start of FOLFIRINOX [odds ratio (OR) 10.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40–79.14] and the presence of a homozygous TP53 Pro72Arg germline variant (OR 6.98, 95% CI 1.31–37.30) were predictors of early tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX in multivariable analysis. Five patients presented with the combination of a TP53 ctDNA mutation before start of FOLFIRINOX and the homozygous Pro72Arg variant. All five patients showed progression during FOLFIRINOX. The combination of the TP53 mutation and TP53 germline variant was associated with shorter survival (median OS 4.4 months, 95% CI 2.6–6.2 months) compared with patients without any TP53 alterations (median OS 13.0 months, 95% CI 8.6–17.4 months).Conclusion:The combination of a TP53 ctDNA mutation before start of FOLFIRINOX and a homozygous TP53 Pro72Arg variant is a promising biomarker, associated with early tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX and poor OS. The results of this exploratory study need to be validated in an independent cohort.