Real-world treatment patterns and overall survival in BRAF-mutant melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

Aim: To assess overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma by first-line (1L) targeted therapy (TT) or checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) use, second-line (2L) TT or CPI use, and treatment sequence. Patients & methods: Advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma patients treated with 1L CPI or TT were selected from a real-world, electronic health record-derived database. Results: CPI was associated with improved survival after adjustment for potential confounders (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.87]). Median OS was similar between 2L therapies and among likely treatment sequences. Conclusion: This real-world study demonstrated a survival benefit with 1L CPI versus TT. Analyses of 2L and treatment sequences were unable to detect or rule out clinically relevant differences in OS.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are the preferred treatment options for patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma, with more patients starting first-line treatment with checkpoint inhibitors in the real world. Our study suggests that starting treatment with checkpoint inhibitors instead of targeted therapies may improve survival; however, we were unable to determine the optimal sequence of treatments that patients should be given. The findings of this study highlight the need for further investigation into the optimal treatment sequence with checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Impact of initial treatment and prognostic factors on postprogression survival in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with dacarbazine or vemurafenib ± cobimetinib: a pooled analysis of four clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify patient subgroups with distinct postprogression overall survival (ppOS) outcomes and investigate the impact of original treatment assignment and initial postprogression treatment (ppRx) on ppOS. METHODS: Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was performed to model relationships between prespecified covariates and ppOS in patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma who had experienced progressive disease (PD) following treatment with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib, vemurafenib monotherapy, or dacarbazine in the BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM studies. Prognostic subgroups identified by RPA were then applied to pooled treatment cohorts. The primary endpoint was ppOS, defined as time from first PD to death from any cause. RESULTS: RPA identified baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), baseline disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at PD, and ppRx as significant prognostic factors for ppOS. Median ppOS was longest in patients with normal baseline LDH, stage M1c disease at baseline, and ppRx with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (12.2 months; 95% CI 10.3-16.1) and shortest in those with elevated baseline LDH > 2 × upper limit of normal (2.3 months; 95% CI 1.8-2.7). Original treatment assignment did not impact ppOS. Across treatment cohorts, patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy after PD had better ppOS than those given other treatments. CONCLUSION: A combination of factors at baseline (LDH, disease stage) and PD (performance status, ppRx) impact ppOS outcomes. ppRx with immunotherapy or targeted therapy is an independent prognostic factor for improved overall survival following progression regardless of original treatment. Trial registration The trials included in this analysis are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00949702 (BRIM-2), NCT01006980 (BRIM-3), NCT01271803 (BRIM-7), and NCT01689519 (coBRIM).

Efficacy, Toxicity, and Infectious Complications in Ruxolitinib-Treated Patients with Corticosteroid-Refractory Graft-versus-Host Disease after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

Corticosteroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease (SR-GVHD) remains a significant source of morbidity after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. No standard therapy exists in this setting; however, recent studies have demonstrated a very promising role for ruxolitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor. With increasing evidence of efficacy for SR-GVHD, limited data exist describing complications of ruxolitinib use, specifically infectious complications during use in SR-GVHD. In this study we report outcomes and infectious complications at our institution with ruxolitinib use. Overall, 43 patients were treated with ruxolitinib for SR-GVHD, 19 for acute SR-GVHD and 24 for chronic SR-GVHD. With respect to acute SR-GVHD, 15 patients had grade III acute GVHD and 4 patients had grade IV acute GVHD. At 28 days, a response rate of 84% was detected. With respect to chronic SR-GVHD, 16 patients had moderate refractory disease and 8 had severe refractory disease. At around 28 days, a 63% response rate was detected. Overall, 42% of patients (n = 18) treated with ruxolitinib had a documented infectious event. Infectious events were significantly more common among patients treated for acute SR-GVHD (P < .005). Among patients treated for acute SR-GVHD, both viral (n = 11) and bacterial (n = 10) events were frequently encountered. Cytomegalovirus reactivation was detected in 4 patients without organ involvement in any patient. Bacteremia was the most common bacterial event (n = 8), and 2 patients died after development of bacteremia. Only 5 of 24 patients treated with ruxolitinib for chronic SR-GVHD developed infectious complications after initiation of therapy. Nearly an even number of viral (n = 3) and bacterial (n = 4) were detected. This study supports the use of ruxolitinib in SR-GVHD, with impressive responses observed in both acute and chronic SR-GVHD. Infectious complications were particularly frequent among patients treated for acute SR-GVHD, and nearly all these patients were concurrently on high-dose steroids while on ruxolitinib. This study suggests careful monitoring for viral reactivation is required for patients initiated on ruxolitinib, supports the role of continuing prophylactic antimicrobial measures in ruxolitinib-treated GVHD patients, and raises the question of whether bacterial prophylaxis should be considered among patients initiated on ruxolitinib for acute SR-GVHD, particularly while on high-dose steroids.

Impact of depth of response on survival in patients treated with cobimetinib ± vemurafenib: pooled analysis of BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7 and coBRIM.

BACKGROUND: This pooled analysis investigated the prognostic value of depth of response in two cohorts of patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib. METHODS: The data were pooled from BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7 and coBRIM. Association of depth of response with survival was estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for clinically relevant covariates. Depth of response was analysed in previously identified prognostic subgroups based on disease characteristics and gene signatures. RESULTS: Greater tumour reduction and longer time to maximal response were significantly associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when evaluated as continuous variables. Patients with the deepest responses had long-lasting survival outcomes (median PFS: 14 months; OS: 32 months with vemurafenib; not estimable with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib). Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib improved depth of response versus vemurafenib monotherapy regardless of other prognostic factors, including gene signatures. CONCLUSIONS: Greater depth of response was associated with improved survival, supporting its utility as a measure of treatment efficacy in melanoma and further evaluation of its incorporation into existing prognostic models. Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib improved outcomes across quartiles of response regardless of prognostic factors or gene signatures and provided durable survival benefits in patients with deep responses.

Correction to: Long-term safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: final update of the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study.

Following publication of the original article [1], it was reported that the legend for Fig. 1 was incomplete. The complete figure legend is.

Association of body-mass index and outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy: a retrospective, multicohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has been linked to increased mortality in several cancer types; however, the relation between obesity and survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between body-mass index (BMI) and progression-free survival or overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma who received targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed independent cohorts of patients with metastatic melanoma assigned to treatment with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy in randomised clinical trials and one retrospective study of patients treated with immunotherapy. Patients were classified according to BMI, following the WHO definitions, as underweight, normal, overweight, or obese. Patients without BMI and underweight patients were excluded. The primary outcomes were the associations between BMI and progression-free survival or overall survival, stratified by treatment type and sex. We did multivariable analyses in the independent cohorts, and combined adjusted hazard ratios in a mixed-effects meta-analysis to provide a precise estimate of the association between BMI and survival outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed with meta-regression analyses. Analyses were done on the predefined intention-to-treat population in the randomised controlled trials and on all patients included in the retrospective study. FINDINGS: The six cohorts consisted of a total of 2046 patients with metastatic melanoma treated with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy between Aug 8, 2006, and Jan 15, 2016. 1918 patients were included in the analysis. Two cohorts containing patients from randomised controlled trials treated with targeted therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib [n=599] and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib [n=240]), two cohorts containing patients treated with immunotherapy (one randomised controlled trial of ipilimumab plus dacarbazine [n=207] and a retrospective cohort treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab [n=331]), and two cohorts containing patients treated with chemotherapy (two randomised controlled trials of dacarbazine [n=320 and n=221]) were classified according to BMI as normal (694 [36%] patients), overweight (711 [37%]), or obese (513 [27%]). In the pooled analysis, obesity, compared with normal BMI, was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma (average adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·66-0·90] for progression-free survival and 0·74 [0·58-0·95] for overall survival). The survival benefit associated with obesity was restricted to patients treated with targeted therapy (HR 0·72 [0·57-0·91] for progression-free survival and 0·60 [0·45-0·79] for overall survival) and immunotherapy (HR 0·75 [0·56-1·00] and 0·64 [0·47-0·86]). No associations were observed with chemotherapy (HR 0·87 [0·65-1·17, pinteraction=0·61] for progression-free survival and 1·03 [0·80-1·34, pinteraction=0·01] for overall survival). The association of BMI with overall survival for patients treated with targeted and immune therapies differed by sex, with inverse associations in men (HR 0·53 [0·40-0·70]), but no associations observed in women (HR 0·85 [0·61-1·18, pinteraction=0·03]). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that in patients with metastatic melanoma, obesity is associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with those outcomes in patients with normal BMI, and that this association is mainly seen in male patients treated with targeted or immune therapy. These results have implications for the design of future clinical trials for patients with metastatic melanoma and the magnitude of the benefit found supports further investigation of the underlying mechanism of these associations. FUNDING: ASCO/CCF Young Investigator Award, ASCO/CCF Career Development Award, MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Melanoma Moonshot Program, MDACC Melanoma SPORE, and the Dr Miriam and Sheldon G Adelson Medical Research Foundation.

Long-term safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: final update of the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the ERIVANCE BCC trial, vismodegib, the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, showed objective response rates (ORRs) by independent review facility (IRF) of 30% and 43% in metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) and locally advanced BCC (laBCC), respectively. ORRs by investigator review were 45% (mBCC) and 60% (laBCC). Herein, we present long-term safety and final investigator-assessed efficacy results in patients with mBCC or laBCC. METHODS: One hundred four patients with measurable advanced BCC received oral vismodegib 150 mg once daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was IRF-assessed ORR. Secondary end points included ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: At data cutoff (39 months after completion of accrual), 8 patients were receiving the study drug (69 patients in survival follow-up). Investigator-assessed ORR was 48.5% in the mBCC group (all partial responses) and 60.3% in the laBCC group (20 patients had complete response and 18 patients had partial response). ORRs were comparable across patient subgroups, including aggressive histologic subtypes (eg, infiltrative BCC). Median DOR was 14.8 months (mBCC) and 26.2 months (laBCC). Median OS was 33.4 months in the mBCC cohort and not estimable in the laBCC cohort. Adverse events remained consistent with clinical experience. Thirty-three deaths (31.7%) were reported; none were related to vismodegib. CONCLUSIONS: This long-term update of the ERIVANCE BCC trial demonstrated durability of response, efficacy across patient subgroups, and manageable long-term safety of vismodegib in patients with advanced BCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered prospectively with Clinicaltrials.gov , number NCT00833417 on January 30, 2009.

Effect of adjuvant capecitabine or fluorouracil, with or without oxaliplatin, on survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer and the effect of oxaliplatin on post-relapse survival: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy is the standard of care for stage III colon cancer. Adjuvant capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin versus leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin has not been directly compared; therefore, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of these treatments using individual patient data pooled from four randomised controlled trials. We also assessed post-relapse survival, which has been postulated to be worse in patients receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin. METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer who were 18 years of age or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from four randomised controlled trials (NSABP C-08, XELOXA, X-ACT, and AVANT; 8734 patients in total) were pooled and analysed. The treatment regimens included in our analyses were: XELOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine); leucovorin and fluorouracil; capecitabine; FOLFOX-4 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin); and modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint for all trials that supplied patients for this analysis. Here, we compared disease-free, relapse-free, and overall survival between the patient groups who received capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and those who received leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin. Post-relapse survival was compared between the combined XELOX and FOLFOX groups, and the leucovorin and fluorouracil groups. Post-relapse survival was also compared between the capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin groups. FINDINGS: Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who received leucovorin and fluorouracil versus those who received capecitabine in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·93-1·11; p=0·72]) or in unadjusted analyses (HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·10; p=0·86]). Relapse-free survival was similar (adjusted HR 1·02 [0·93-1·12; p=0·72] and unadjusted HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·11; p=0·86]), as was overall survival (adjusted HR 1·04 [95% CI 0·93-1·15; p=0·50] and unadjusted HR 1·02 [0·92-1·14]; p=0·65). For overall survival, a significant interaction between oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine was recorded in the multiple Cox regression analysis (p=0·014). Post-relapse survival was similar in adjusted (p=0·23) and unadjusted analyses (p=0·33) for the comparison of XELOX or FOLFOX versus leucovorin and fluorouracil, and was also similar for capecitabine-based regimens versus leucovorin and fluorouracil-based regimens (unadjusted p=0·26). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with oxaliplatin provided consistently improved outcomes without adversely affecting post-relapse survival in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, irrespective of whether the fluoropyrimidine backbone was capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil. These data add to the existing evidence that oxaliplatin plus capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil is the standard of care for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, and offers physicians flexibility to treat patients according to the patients' overall physical performance and preference. FUNDING: Genentech Inc.

Expanded access study of patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma treated with the Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, vismodegib.

BACKGROUND: Vismodegib, a first-in-class Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, was US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for advanced basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) based on a single, nonrandomized, phase-II trial. Consequently, additional clinical data are critical to confirm the efficacy and safety of vismodegib. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess efficacy and safety of vismodegib, while providing early drug access to patients with advanced BCC and limited treatment options. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicenter study in patients with advanced BCC inappropriate for radiotherapy or surgery. Patients received 150 mg vismodegib daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Tumor response was assessed via Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients with advanced BCC took vismodegib for a median of 5.5 months. Objective responses occurred in 46.4% of locally advanced BCC and 30.8% of patients with metastatic BCC. Response was negatively associated with prior systemic therapy in patients with locally advanced BCC (P = .002). Mean follow-up for safety was 6.5 months, with muscle spasms (70.6%), dysgeusia (70.6%), alopecia (58.0%), and diarrhea (25.2%) as the most common adverse events. LIMITATIONS: Abbreviated follow-up time because of study termination upon FDA approval was a limitation. CONCLUSION: This study provides important clinical data supporting the efficacy and safety of vismodegib. Larger studies are underway to assess predictors of response and long-term outcomes.

A randomized, phase II trial of standard triweekly compared with dose-dense biweekly capecitabine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: XELOX-A-DVS (dense versus standard).

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine administered for 7 days biweekly with oxaliplatin (XELOX) biweekly has been reported to have activity and safety profiles similar to those of standard capecitabine given for 14 days triweekly. Multiple studies have shown that the addition of bevacizumab to 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is active and well tolerated. METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomized to XELOX plus bevacizumab using a standard triweekly cycle (Q3W) or a dose-dense biweekly cycle (Q2W) schedule. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier, NCT00159432). RESULTS: In total, 435 U.S. patients were randomized. The median PFS intervals were 9.6 months in the Q3W group and 9.1 months in the Q2W group. The median overall survival times were 28.4 months and 22.1 months and the median times to treatment failure were 5.5 months and 3.4 months, respectively. Overall, gastrointestinal disorders were the most common (93%) adverse event (AE). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 75% and 81% of patients in the Q3W and Q2W groups, respectively. Treatment discontinuation as a result of diarrhea (5% versus 10%) and hand-foot syndrome (2% versus 9%) was less common in the Q3W group than in the Q2W group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, the first-line treatment of U.S. patients with mCRC using a biweekly combination of XELOX and bevacizumab at the doses studied cannot be recommended. XELOX Q3W remains the preferred schedule for the management of mCRC.

TP53 genomics predict higher clinical and pathologic tumor response in operable early-stage breast cancer treated with docetaxel-capecitabine ± trastuzumab.

To determine rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) and near-complete response (npCR) in operable early-stage breast cancer using neoadjuvant capecitabine plus docetaxel, with or without trastuzumab, and investigate biomarkers of pathologic response. Women with operable early-stage breast cancer were enrolled in a multicenter study of neoadjuvant therapy for four 21-day cycles with capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) if human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, and additionally, a standard trastuzumab dose if HER2-positive. Primary endpoint was rate of pCR and npCR. Secondary endpoints were potential associations between response and TP53 mutational analysis using the AmpliChip TP53 assay or immunohistochemical (IHC) staining, and genomic subtyping using the PAM50 assay. In patients who completed treatment and surgery, pCR and npCR rates were 15.8% in patients with HER2-negative and 50% in patients with HER2-positive tumors. Stratified by genomic subtype, patients of HER2-enriched subtype had the best response (72.2%), and luminal A (9.1%) and B (4.8%) subtypes, the poorest. Of 147 patients tested for TP53 mutations using the AmpliChip assay, 78 variants were detected; 55 were missense. Response rate among TP53-mutated patients was 30%, significantly higher than TP53 wild-type patients (10%; P = 0.0032). Concordance between AmpliChip mutation status versus TP53 IHC staining was 65%, with AmpliChip status predictive of response and IHC status not predictive. Capecitabine plus docetaxel in HER2-negative, and with trastuzumab in HER2-positive patients, provided a good response rate with four cycles of non-anthracycline-containing therapy. TP53 mutational analysis and genomic subtyping were predictive.

Pooled analysis of individual patient data from capecitabine monotherapy clinical trials in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

We assessed the efficacy and safety of capecitabine across treatment lines, and the impact of patient and disease characteristics on outcomes using data from phase II/III trials. Individual patient data were pooled from seven Roche/Genentech-led trials conducted from 1996 to 2008 where single-agent capecitabine was the test or control regimen for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Data were analyzed from 805 patients: 268 in the first-line metastatic setting and 537 in the second-line or later setting. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment lines. Patients receiving second-line or later versus first-line capecitabine had lower objective response rates (ORR: 19.0 vs. 25.0 %, respectively, odds ratio 0.70; 95 % CI: 0.5-1.0) and significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS: median 112.0 days [3.7 months] vs. 150.0 days [4.9 months]; p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS: median 396.0 days [13.0 months] vs. 666.0 days [21.9 months]; p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis by backward elimination, significantly improved ORR (p = 0.0036), PFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p < 0.0001) with capecitabine were demonstrated in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive versus both ER and PgR-negative tumors. Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was the most common adverse event (AE) in 63 % of patients. Overall, 7 % of patients discontinued and two patients (<1 %) died from treatment-related AEs. Significantly improved survival was observed in patients developing capecitabine-related HFS (p < 0.0001 PFS/OS) or diarrhea (p = 0.004 OS; p = 0.0045 PFS) versus patients without these events. In this pooled analysis of individual patient data, first-line capecitabine was associated with improved ORR, PFS, and OS versus second or later lines. Multivariate analyses identified greater ORR, PFS, and OS with capecitabine in patients with ER and/or PgR-positive versus ER/PgR-negative tumors. Safety was in-line with previous phase III trials in MBC.

Economic and health care resource utilization burden of central nervous system metastases in patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic melanoma, central nervous system (CNS) involvement is associated with poor prognosis, increased costs, and higher health care resource utilization (HCRU); however, previous cost-estimate studies were conducted before widespread use of targeted therapies and immunotherapies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs and HCRU in patients with metastatic melanoma with and without CNS metastases in the current treatment era following introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapies. METHODS: This real-world retrospective cohort study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims database to estimate and compare costs and HCRU in patients with metastatic melanoma by presence or absence of CNS metastases between January 2011 and June 2019. Patients with at least 2 melanoma claims, at least 2 metastatic claims, and continuous enrollment at least 6 months before and at least 1 month after first metastatic diagnosis were included. Mean per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs are reported in 2019 US dollars. Analyses were also conducted by time period of first metastatic diagnosis: 2011-2014 (reflecting BRAF inhibitor monotherapy and anti-CTLA-4 therapy) and 2015-2019 (reflecting availability of BRAF and MEK inhibitor combinations and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies). RESULTS: Of 4,078 patients, 1,253 (30.7%) had CNS metastases. Patients with CNS metastases were more likely to receive any treatment (89.1% vs 58.9%; P < 0.001), including systemic treatment (73.3% vs 55.4%; P < 0.001) and radiation (65.8% vs 11.8%; P < 0.001), and to have brain imaging any time after metastatic diagnosis (98.3% vs 67.2%; P < 0.001). In patients with CNS metastases, 40.0% had dexamethasone 4 mg within 30 days of CNS metastatic diagnosis. Patients with CNS metastases incurred higher total mean PPPM costs ($29,953 vs $14,996; P < 0.001). The largest contributors were total radiology ($2,351 vs $1,110), targeted therapies ($2,499 vs $638), and immunotherapies ($7,398 vs $5,036). HCRU and costs were higher in patients with vs without CNS metastases regardless of time period of first metastatic diagnosis. In patients with CNS metastases, use of any systemic treatment was increased in 2015-2019 vs 2011-2014 (81.2% vs 64.5%; P < 0.001), including chemotherapy (68.1% vs 50.0%; P < 0.001), immunotherapy (60.9% vs 30.1%; P < 0.001), and/or targeted therapies (32.7% vs 27.4%; P = 0.05). Mean total PPPM costs for patients with CNS metastases increased from $28,183 in 2011-2014 to $31,569 in 2015-2019 (P < 0.001); main drivers were immunotherapies and targeted therapies. CONCLUSIONS: CNS metastases occur frequently in patients with metastatic melanoma and are associated with significantly increased economic burden compared with patients without CNS metastases; the largest contributors to total costs in the current treatment era are radiology, targeted therapies, and immunotherapies. Brain imaging remains underused, and there is an opportunity to improve outcomes through early detection of CNS metastases, potentially reducing the high HCRU and costs associated with CNS metastases. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. Seetasith and Lee are employed by and report stock ownership in Genentech, Inc. Bartley and McKenna were employed by Genentech, Inc., at the time of this study and report stock ownership. Tawbi reports grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, Novartis, BMS, and Merck; grants from GSK and Celgene; and personal fees from Eisai, outside the submitted work. Kent, Burton, and Haydu have nothing to disclose. The results of this study were presented in part at the AMCP Nexus 2020 Virtual Meeting, October 19-23, 2020.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with melanoma and central nervous system metastases: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma and central nervous system (CNS) metastases have poor survival outcomes. We investigated real-world treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) of patients with melanoma and CNS metastases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis utilizing a nationwide de-identified electronic health record-derived database was undertaken in patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma between January 2011 and September 2018. Patients with any visit ≤90 days of metastatic diagnosis and with confirmed CNS metastases were included. RESULTS: Of 3473 patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma, 791 patients with confirmed CNS metastases were identified and included in this analysis. Synchronous CNS metastasis (≤30 days of metastatic diagnosis) was associated with longer median OS than metachronous CNS metastasis (>30 days after metastatic diagnosis, 0.58 vs 0.42 years). Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) was the most common treatment (40.5%) alone or in combination with other local or systemic therapies, being more frequent in patients diagnosed in 2015+ versus 2011-2014 (44.1% vs 35.5%, respectively). The most common systemic treatment was immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs; 30.5%), predominantly anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) alone (2011-2014) and anti-programmed death-1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 (2015+). Median OS was longest in SRS-treated patients (1.17 years) regardless of number of CNS metastases. Median OS for SRS-treated patients increased from 0.83 years (2011-2014) to 1.75 years (2015+). In multivariable analysis, the effect of SRS remained significant after adjustment for sex, race, intracranial and extracranial disease burden, and timing of CNS metastases. Interaction testing to examine potential synergy between SRS/whole-brain radiation therapy and ICIs found no significant interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in treatment, patients with melanoma and CNS metastases have poor survival outcomes. Prevalence of SRS increased over time and was associated with improved outcomes.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost of Care in Patients With Periocular Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-World Study.

PURPOSE: To date, there are no studies on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs for treating periocular basal cell carcinoma (pBCC). We investigated real-world HRU and costs of patients with limited versus extensive pBCC. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cost analysis. METHODS: Administrative claims database was mined for basal cell carcinoma (BCC)-related claims from January 2011 to December 2018. Patients had ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient nondiagnostic claims for pBCC ≥30 days apart, ≥6 months of continuous enrollment in a health plan before the index date, and ≥18 months of continuous enrollment after the index date. Patients were categorized by disease severity (limited or extensive) using Current Procedural Terminology codes. A total of 1368 patients were propensity matched 1:1 for limited and extensive pBCC (n = 684 each). Outcomes were cost and HRU measures during the 18-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Patients with extensive disease had a higher number of outpatient visits (32.47 vs 28.81; P < .0001), radiation therapies (0.53 vs 0.17; P = .001), surgeries (1.82 vs 1.24; P < .001), days between first and last surgery (40.82 vs 16.51 days; P < .001), outpatient pBCC claims (3.89 vs 3.38; P < .001), and days between pBCC claims (170.43 vs 144.01 days; P < .001). Patients with extensive disease incurred higher total all-cause costs ($36,986.10 vs $31,893.13; P = .02), outpatient costs ($20,450.26 vs $16,885.87; P = .005), radiation therapy costs ($314.28 vs $89.81; P = .01), and surgery costs ($3,697.08 vs $2,585.80; P < .001) than patients with limited disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with extensive pBCC incurred higher costs, greater HRU, and longer time between first and last surgery versus patients with limited pBCC. Early diagnosis and early treatment of pBCC have economic benefits.

Short term safety of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines in patients with solid tumors receiving systemic therapy.

BACKGROUND: There are currently three coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to prevent coronavirus infection. However, robust data are unavailable on the adverse events of the vaccines in patients with solid tumor malignancies undergoing systemic therapies. AIM: To evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with solid tumors undergoing systemic therapies. METHODS: The study included patients with solid tumors treated in an academic tertiary care center who received COVID-19 vaccination between January 1, 2021 and August 15, 2021, while undergoing systemic therapy. Electronic medical records were accessed to collect information on patient characteristics, systemic therapies, type of vaccine received, and adverse effects associated with the vaccine administration. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. RESULTS: The analysis included 210 patients; the median age was 70 years, and 51% of patients were female. The most common chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy administered were taxane-based regimens 14.2% (30/210), anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) agents 22.8% (48/210), and antiangiogenic agents 7.1% (15/210), respectively. The most common cancers were gastrointestinal 43.8% (92/210), thoracic 30.4% (64/210), and genitourinary 17.6% (37/210). Patients received the following vaccines: 2 doses of BNT162b2 by Pfizer 52% (110/210), 2 doses of mRNA-1273 by Moderna 42% (89/210), and 1 dose of JNJ-78436735 by Johnson & Johnson 5% (11/210). At least 1 AE attributable to the vaccine was observed in 37 patients 17.6% (37/210). The total number of AEs attributable to vaccines was 62: Fifty-three grade 1 and nine grade 2. Most adverse events occurred after the second dose 59.7% (37/62). The most frequent grade 1 AEs included fatigue 17% (9/53), fever 15% (8/53), injection site reaction 13.2% (7/53), and chills 9.4% (5/53). The most frequent grade 2 AEs were fatigue 33.3% (3/9) and generalized weakness 22.2% (2/9). Therapy was delayed by 2 wk because of the AEs possibly related to vaccine administration in 3 patients 1.4% (3/210). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that the adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination are infrequent, mild, and rarely delay treatment in patients with solid tumors receiving systemic therapies.

Theragnostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and Ki67 in BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma (BRIM-3 trial).

We conducted a retrospective tumor tissue analysis as part of the BRIM3 trial to evaluate the theragnostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and melanoma cell proliferation. Using manual semi-quantitative analyses, we assessed the density of TILs by pathology review of tissue sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E TIL score) and by immunohistochemistry (IHC) with an anti-CD8 antibody (CD8 TIL score); also, the melanoma cell proliferation by IHC with an anti-Ki67 antibody. Three hundred and fifty-three, 280, and 172 patients' tumor tissue samples were available for H&E, CD8, and Ki67 IHC analysis, respectively. There was no association between high (2+, 3+) peritumoral and intratumoral H&E and/or TIL CD8 score or high Ki67 proliferation index (>15%) with serum LDH level and stage IV melanoma. Neither high Ki67 proliferation, nor high peritumoral and/or intratumoral TIL score was significantly associated with objective antitumor response in any treatment arm. High intratumoral and high peritumoral CD8 TIL score was significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS) only in DTIC-treated patients (P = 0.002 and 0.037, respectively); in vemurafenib-treated patients, high intratumoral and/or peritumoral CD8 TIL score was not significant (log-rank P = 0.053 and 0.062, respectively). Nevertheless, a high peritumoral CD8 TIL score was a significant predictor of PFS and overall survival after adjustment for age, sex, serum LDH, ECOG performance status, and treatment arm in a Cox regression model. Vemurafenib does not only benefit patients bearing brisk TILs; even vemurafenib-treated patients with absent and/or non-brisk TILs tend to have longer PFS compared to DTIC-treated patients with brisk TILs. High peritumoral CD8 TIL score is a favorable prognostic factor independent of well-established AJCC staging factors.

Real-world assessment and treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma: Findings from the RegiSONIC disease registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding real-world treatment patterns and their effectiveness and safety in patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma, including patients not typically represented in clinical trials. The purpose of the current study was to describe how clinicians diagnose and treat locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in the United States. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational registry study included patients with newly diagnosed, Hedgehog pathway inhibitor-naive locally advanced basal cell carcinoma without basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome (n = 433) treated at 75 US academic and community practices, including dermatology, Mohs surgery, and medical oncology sites. The main outcomes of this study were treatment patterns and associated effectiveness and safety for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in real-world settings. RESULTS: Determination of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma was mainly based on lesion size (79.6% of patients), histopathology (54.3%), extent of involvement (49.0%), and location (46.2%). Within 90 days of determination of locally advanced disease, 115 patients (26.6%) received vismodegib, 251 (58.0%) received surgery/other (non-vismodegib) treatment, and 67 (15.5%) had not yet received treatment (observation). Vismodegib-treated patients had a higher prevalence of high-risk clinical features predictive for locoregional recurrence than those with non-vismodegib treatment or observation. Clinical response rate was 85.1% with vismodegib and 94.9% with non-vismodegib treatment (primarily surgery). The most common adverse events with vismodegib were ageusia/dysgeusia, muscle spasms, alopecia, and weight loss. Rates of cutaneous squamous cell cancers were comparable between vismodegib and non-vismodegib treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective observational study offers insight on real-world practice, treatment selection, and outcomes for a nationally representative sample of US patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma. For patients with lesions that were not amenable to surgery, vismodegib treatment was associated with effectiveness and safety that was consistent with that observed in clinical trials.

Association of age and overall survival in capecitabine-treated patients with metastatic breast cancer in clinical trials.

We sought to determine if an association exists between age and capecitabine efficacy among patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Pooled analysis of five phase II or III registration trials of capecitabine 2,500-2,510 mg/m(2)/day for 2 weeks and 1 week off, or combination therapy was performed. Four trials enrolled patients previously exposed to other chemotherapy, generally a taxane. Of 570 patients, 193 (34%) were 18-49 years old, 246 (43%) were 50-64, and 131 (23%) were ≥ 65. Median average daily dose was 2,067 mg/m² in the 18- to 49-year-old group and 2,105 mg/m² in the 50-64 and ≥ 65 year groups. Overall survival (OS) in all groups was similar by log-rank test for the individual trials (P = 0.71-0.95) and Cox regression of the pooled trials. Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in clinical benefit or objective response between groups. Treatment failure analysis showed 283 (50%) patients experienced progressive disease, while 114 (20%) withdrew for safety. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 71 (36.8%), 85 (34.6%), and 59 (45.0%) patients in the 18-49, 50-64, and ≥ 65 years groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant association between age and OS, clinical benefit, or objective response in patients with MBC treated with capecitabine. Frequency of AEs and serious AEs was not related to age at treatment, although women ≥ 65 years were more likely to withdraw from treatment because of an AE than younger women.