Search

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAFV600-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 BRAFV600-mutant melanoma patients. Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with advanced melanoma and a known BRAFV600-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 85.4% (95% CI: 58.1–73.6) vs. 41.7% (95% CI: 34.2–51.0). Conclusions: Our data suggest that in the matched BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the preferred first-line treatment in patients with relatively favourable patient and tumour characteristics.

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 compleme

Background Many cancer patients do not obtain clinical benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition. Checkpoint blockade targets T cells, suggesting that tyrosine kinase activity profiling of baseline peripheral blood mononuclear cells may predict clinical outcome. Methods Here a total of 160 patients with advanced melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), treated with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) or anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1), were divided into five discovery and cross-validation cohorts. The kinase activity profile was generated by analyzing phosphorylation of peripheral blood mononuclear cell lysates in a microarray comprising of 144 peptides derived from sites that are substrates for protein tyrosine kinases. Binary grouping into patients with or without clinical benefit was based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Predictive models were trained using partial least square discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), performance of the models was evaluated by estimating the correct classification rate (CCR) using cross-validation. Results The kinase phosphorylation signatures segregated responders from non-responders by differences in canonical pathways governing T-cell migration, infiltration and co-stimulation. PLS-DA resulted in a CCR of 100% and 93% in the anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD1 melanoma discovery cohorts, respectively. Cross-validation cohorts to estimate the accuracy of the predictive models showed CCRs of 83% for anti-CTLA-4

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 survi

Background: The RECOURSE trial showed clinical efficacy for trifluridine/tipiracil for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients. We assessed the feasibility and effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil in daily clinical practice in The Netherlands. Methods: Medical records of patients from 17 centers treated in the trifluridine/tipiracil compassionate use program were reviewed and checked for RECOURSE eligibility criteria. Baseline characteristics, safety, and survival times were compared, and prespecified baseline characteristics were tested in multivariate analyses for prognostic significance on overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 136 patients with a median age of 62 years were analyzed. Forty-three patients (32%) did not meet the RECOURSE eligibility criteria for not having received all prior standard treatments (n = 35, 26%) and/or ECOG performance status (PS) 2 (n = 12, 9%). The most common grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (n = 44, 32%), leukopenia (n = 8, 6%), anemia (n = 7, 5%), and fatigue (n = 7, 5%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median OS were 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8–2.3) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.0–6.9), respectively. Patients with ECOG PS 2 had a worse median OS (3.2 months) compared to patients with ECOG PS 0–1 (5.9 months). ECOG PS, KRAS-mutation status, white blood cell count, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and alkaline phosphatase were prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: Our data show that treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil in daily clinical practice is feasible and safe. Differences in patient characteristics between our population and the RECOURSE study population should be taken into account in the interpretation of survival data. Our results argue against the use of trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with ECOG PS 2. Funding: Johannes J.M. Kwakman received an unrestricted research grant from Servier.