Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy or in combination with ipilimumab after BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma.
Pires da Silva, Ines; Zakria, Danny; Ahmed, Tasnia; Trojanello, Claudia; Dimitriou, Florentia; Allayous, Clara; Gerard, Camille; Zimmer, Lisa; Lo, Serigne; Michielin, Olivier; Lebbe, Celeste; Mangana, Johanna; Ascierto, Paolo Antonio; Johnson, Douglas B; Carlino, Matteo; Menzies, Alexander; Long, Georgina.
Afiliação
  • Pires da Silva I; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Zakria D; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Ahmed T; Blacktown & Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Trojanello C; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
  • Dimitriou F; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Allayous C; Unit of Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Development Therapeutics, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
  • Gerard C; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Zimmer L; Dermatolo-Oncology AP-HP Hôpital Saint-Louis, INSERM U976, Paris, France.
  • Lo S; Precision Oncology Centre, CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Michielin O; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
  • Lebbe C; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Mangana J; Precision Oncology Centre, CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Ascierto PA; Université Paris Cite, Dermatolo-Oncology AP-HP Hôpital Saint-Louis, INSERM U976, Paris, France.
  • Johnson DB; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Carlino M; Unit of Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Development Therapeutics, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
  • Menzies A; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
  • Long G; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
J Immunother Cancer ; 10(7)2022 07.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35798536
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Patients with V600BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma have higher rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with first-line anti-PD1 (PD1]+anti-CTLA-4 (IPI) versus PD1. Whether this is also true after BRAF/MEKi therapy is unknown. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of PD1 versus IPI +PD1 after BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi).

METHODS:

Patients with V600BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma treated with BRAF/MEKi who had subsequent PD1 versus IPI+PD1 at eight centers were included. The endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), PFS, OS and safety in each group.

RESULTS:

Of 200 patients with V600E (75%) or non-V600E (25%) mutant metastatic melanoma treated with BRAF/MEKi (median time of treatment 7.6 months; treatment cessation due to progressive disease in 77%), 115 (57.5%) had subsequent PD1 and 85 (42.5%) had IPI+PD1. Differences in patient characteristics between PD1 and IPI+PD1 groups included, age (med. 63 vs 54 years), time between BRAF/MEKi and PD1±IPI (16 vs 4 days), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) of ≥1 (62% vs 44%), AJCC M1C/M1D stage (72% vs 94%) and progressing brain metastases at the start of PD1±IPI (34% vs 57%). Median follow-up from PD1±IPI start was 37.8 months (95% CI, 33.9 to 52.9). ORR was 36%; 34% with PD1 vs 39% with IPI+PD1 (p=0.5713). Median PFS was 3.4 months; 3.4 with PD1 vs 3.6 months with IPI+PD1 (p=0.6951). Median OS was 15.4 months; 14.4 for PD1 vs 20.5 months with IPI+PD1 (p=0.2603). The rate of grade 3 or 4 toxicities was higher with IPI+PD1 (31%) vs PD1 (7%). ORR, PFS and OS were numerically higher with IPI+PD1 vs PD1 across most subgroups except for females, those with <10 days between BRAF/MEKi and PD1±IPI, and those with stage III/M1A/M1B melanoma. The combination of ECOG PS=0 and absence of liver metastases identified patients with >3 years OS (area under the curve, AUC=0.74), while ECOG PS ≥1, progressing brain metastases and presence of bone metastases predicted primary progression (AUC=0.67).

CONCLUSIONS:

IPI+PD1 and PD1 after BRAF/MEKi have similar outcomes despite worse baseline prognostic features in the IPI+PD1 group, however, IPI+PD1 is more toxic. A combination of clinical factors can identify long-term survivors, but less accurately those with primary resistance to immunotherapy after targeted therapy.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Cutâneas / Neoplasias Encefálicas / Segunda Neoplasia Primária / Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases / Melanoma Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Immunother Cancer Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Cutâneas / Neoplasias Encefálicas / Segunda Neoplasia Primária / Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases / Melanoma Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Immunother Cancer Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália