The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Time to Treatment in Surgical Oncology: A National Registry Study in The Netherlands.

To avoid delay in oncological treatment, a 6-weeks norm for time to treatment has been agreed on in The Netherlands. However, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems resulted in reduced capacity for regular surgical care. In this study, we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to treatment in surgical oncology in The Netherlands. METHODS: A population-based analysis of data derived from five surgical audits, including patients who underwent surgery for lung cancer, colorectal cancer, upper gastro-intestinal, and hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) malignancies, was performed. The COVID-19 cohort of 2020 was compared to the historic cohorts of 2018 and 2019. Primary endpoints were time to treatment initiation and the proportion of patients whose treatment started within 6 weeks. The secondary objective was to evaluate the differences in characteristics and tumour stage distribution between patients treated before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 14,567 surgical cancer patients were included in this study, of these 3292 treatments were started during the COVID-19 pandemic. The median time to treatment decreased during the pandemic (26 vs. 27 days, p < 0.001) and the proportion of patients whose treatment started within 6 weeks increased (76% vs. 73%, p < 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusting for patient characteristics, no significant difference in post-operative outcomes between patients who started treatment before or after 6 weeks was found. Overall, the number of procedures performed per week decreased by 8.1% during the pandemic. This reduction was most profound for patients with stage I lung carcinoma and colorectal carcinoma. There were fewer patients with pulmonary comorbidities in the pandemic cohort (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Despite pressure on the capacity of the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic, a larger proportion of surgical oncological patients started treatment within six weeks, possibly due to prioritisation of cancer care and reductions in elective procedures. However, during the pandemic, a decrease in the number of surgical oncological procedures performed in The Netherlands was observed, especially for patients with stage I disease.

Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.

BACKGROUND: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. METHODS: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. CONCLUSION: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.

A Systematic Review on the Impact of Quality Assurance Programs on Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The implementation of quality assurance programs (QAPs) within urological practice has gained prominence; yet, their impact on outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains uncertain. This paper aims to systematically review the current literature regarding the implementation of QAPs and their impact on outcomes after robot-assisted RP, laparoscopic RP, and open prostatectomy, collectively referred to as RP. METHODS: A systematic Embase, Medline (OvidSP), and Scopus search was conducted, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) process, on January 12, 2024. Studies were identified and included if these covered implementation of QAPs and their impact on outcomes after RP. QAPs were defined as any intervention seeking quality improvement through critically reviewing, analyzing, and discussing outcomes. Included studies were assessed critically using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, with results summarized narratively. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Ten included studies revealed two methodological strategies: periodic performance feedback and surgical video assessments. Despite conceptual variability, QAPs improved outcomes consistently (ie, surgical margins, urine continence, erectile function, and hospital readmissions). Of the two strategies, video assessments better identified suboptimal surgical practice and technical errors. Although the extent of quality improvements did not appear to correlate with the frequency of QAPs, there was an apparent correlation with whether or not outcomes were evaluated collectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Current findings suggest that QAPs have a positive impact on outcomes after RP. Caution in interpretation due to limited data is advised. More extensive research is required to explore how conceptual differences impact the extent of quality improvements. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this paper, we review the available scientific literature regarding the implementation of quality assurance programs and their impact on outcomes after radical prostatectomy. The included studies offered substantial support for the implementation of quality assurance programs as an incentive to improve the quality of care continuously.

Interferon-gamma signature as prognostic and predictive marker in macroscopic stage III melanoma.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma do not benefit sufficiently from adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy, as they either recur despite therapy or would never have recurred. To better inform adjuvant treatment selection, we have performed translational analyses to identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two cohorts of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma from an ongoing biobank study were included. Clinical data were compared between an observation cohort (cohort 1) and an adjuvant intention cohort (cohort 2). RNA sequencing for translational analyses was performed and treatment subgroups (cohort 1A and cohort 2A) were compared for possible biomarkers, using a cut-off based on the treatment-naïve patients. In addition, two validation cohorts (Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) and University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU)) were obtained. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 26 months of the 98 patients in our discovery set, median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was significantly longer for the adjuvant intention cohort (cohort 2, n=49) versus the observation cohort (cohort 1, n=49). Median overall survival was not reached for either cohort, nor significantly different. In observation cohort 1A (n=24), RFS was significantly longer for patients with high interferon-gamma (IFNγ) score (p=0.002); for adjuvant patients of cohort 2A (n=24), a similar trend was observed (p=0.086). Patients with high B cell score had a longer RFS in cohort 1A, but no difference was seen in cohort 2A. The B cell score based on RNA correlated with CD20+ cells in tumor area but was not independent from the IFNγ score. In the MIA validation cohort (n=44), longer RFS was observed for patients with high IFNγ score compared with low IFNγ score (p=0.046), no difference in RFS was observed according to the B cell score. In both the observation (n=11) and the adjuvant (n=11) UMCU validation cohorts, no difference in RFS was seen for IFNγ and B cell. CONCLUSIONS: IFNγ has shown to be a prognostic marker in both patients who were and were not treated with adjuvant therapy. B cell score was prognostic but did not improve accuracy over IFNγ. Our study confirmed RFS benefit of adjuvant anti-PD-1 for patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma.

The effect of a single dose of nivolumab prior to isolated limb perfusion for patients with in-transit melanoma metastases: An interim analysis of a phase Ib/II randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (NivoILP trial).

OBJECTIVE: ILP has shown to achieve high response rates in patients with melanoma ITM. Possibly there is a synergistic mechanism of action of ILP and anti-PD1. The aim of this trial was to investigate the safety and efficacy of adding a single dose of systemic anti-PD1 to isolated limb perfusion (ILP) for patients with melanoma in-transit metastases (ITM). METHODS: In this placebo controlled double-blind phase Ib/II trial, patients with melanoma ITM were randomized 1:1 to either a single systemic dose of nivolumab or placebo one day prior to ILP. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate at three months, and safety in terms of incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included. AEs of any grade occurred in 90% of patients in the nivolumab arm and in 80% in the placebo arm within three months after ILP. Grade 3 AEs were reported in 40% and 30% respectively, most commonly related to wound infection, wound dehiscence, or skin necrosis. There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs reported. The CR rate was 75% in the nivolumab arm and 60% in the placebo arm. The 1-year local progression-free rate was 86% in the nivolumab arm and 67% in the placebo arm. The 1-year OS was 100% in both arms. CONCLUSION: For patients with melanoma ITM, the addition of a single systemic dose of nivolumab the day before ILP is considered safe and feasible with promising efficacy. Accrual will continue in a phase 2 trial.

Improving survival in advanced melanoma patients: a trend analysis from 2013 to 2021.

Background: The prognosis of advanced melanoma patients has significantly improved over the years. We aimed to evaluate the survival per year of diagnosis. Methods: All systemically treated patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma from 2013 to 2021 were included from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) were compared between the different years of diagnosis. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between year of diagnosis and OS. Findings: For this cohort study, we included 6260 systemically treated advanced melanoma patients. At baseline, there was an increase over the years in age, the percentage of patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2, with brain metastases, and a synchronous diagnosis of primary and unresectable melanoma. Median OS increased from 11.2 months (95% CI 10.0-12.4) for patients diagnosed in 2013 to 32.0 months (95% CI 26.6-36.7) for patients diagnosed in 2019. Median OS was remarkably lower for patients diagnosed in 2020 (26.6 months; 95% CI 23.9-35.1) and 2021 (24.0 months; 95% CI 20.4-NR). Patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019, although this was not significant. The multivariable Cox regression showed a lower hazard of death for the years of diagnosis after 2013. In contrast, patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019. Interpretation: After a continuous survival improvement for advanced melanoma patients between 2013 and 2019, outcomes of patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 seem poorer. This trend of decreased survival remained after correcting for known prognostic factors and previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment, suggesting that it is explained by unmeasured factors, which-considering the timing-could be COVID-19-related. Funding: For the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing foundation received a start-up grant from governmental organization The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 836002002). The DMTR is structurally funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche Pharma. Roche Pharma stopped funding in 2019, and Pierre Fabre started funding the DMTR in 2019. For this work, no funding was granted.

BRAF/MEK inhibitor rechallenge in advanced melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Effectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking. METHODS: Data from all advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAFi(/MEKi) rechallenge were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The authors analyzed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both first treatment and rechallenge. They performed a multivariable logistic regression and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with response and survival. RESULTS: The authors included 468 patients in the largest cohort to date who underwent at least two treatment episodes of BRAFi(/MEKi). Following rechallenge, ORR was 43%, median PFS was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1-5.2), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.4). Median PFS after rechallenge for patients who discontinued first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.0) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.9) for patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons. Discontinuing first treatment due to progression and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels greater than two times the upper limit of normal were associated with lower odds of response and worse PFS and OS. Symptomatic brain metastases were associated with worse survival, whereas a longer treatment interval between first treatment and rechallenge was associated with better survival. Responding to the first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment was not associated with response or survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that patients benefit from rechallenge. Elevated LDH levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit from rechallenge. A prolonged treatment interval is associated with more benefit from rechallenge.

A prediction model for response to immune checkpoint inhibition in advanced melanoma.

Predicting who will benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in patients with advanced melanoma is challenging. We developed a multivariable prediction model for response to ICI, using routinely available clinical data including primary melanoma characteristics. We used a population-based cohort of 3525 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy. Our prediction model for predicting response within 6 months after ICI initiation was internally validated with bootstrap resampling. Performance evaluation included calibration, discrimination and internal-external cross-validation. Included patients received anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 2366) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 1159) in any treatment line. The model included serum lactate dehydrogenase, World Health Organization performance score, type and line of ICI, disease stage and time to first distant recurrence-all at start of ICI-, and location and type of primary melanoma, the presence of satellites and/or in-transit metastases at primary diagnosis and sex. The over-optimism adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64-0.66). The range of predicted response probabilities was 7%-81%. Based on these probabilities, patients were categorized into quartiles. Compared to the lowest response quartile, patients in the highest quartile had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (20.0 vs 2.8 months; P < .001) and median overall survival (62.0 vs 8.0 months; P < .001). Our prediction model, based on routinely available clinical variables and primary melanoma characteristics, predicts response to ICI in patients with advanced melanoma and discriminates well between treated patients with a very good and very poor prognosis.

Real-world relapse-free survival data on adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy for patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent stage III melanoma.

We aimed to compare the relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients treated with adjuvant anti-programmed cell death-1 (anti-PD-1) therapy for a first diagnosis of stage III melanoma to patients treated after resection of the recurrences. Patients treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy after complete resection of stage III melanoma between September 2018 and January 2021, were included. Depending on when adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment was initiated, patients were divided over 2 cohorts: for the first diagnosis (cohort A) or for a second or subsequent diagnosis (cohort B) of stage III melanoma. Clinical data and RFS were compared between cohorts. 66 patients were included: 37 in cohort A, 29 in cohort B. Median follow-up time from the start of adjuvant therapy was 21 months and 17 months in cohorts A and B, respectively. Significant differences in ulceration of the primary tumor ( P  = 0.032), stage according to the 7th AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer , P  = 0.026) and type of metastatic involvement ( P  = 0.005) were found between cohorts. In cohorts A and B, 18 (49%) and 8 (28%) patients developed a recurrence and the 1-year RFS was 51% and 72%, respectively. In cohort B, RFS remained longer in the patients of which the interval between first diagnosis of stage III melanoma and start of adjuvant therapy was >48 months compared to ≤48 months (83% vs. 65%, P  = 0.253). This study demonstrates that patients with recurrent stage III disease, not previously treated with adjuvant systemic therapy, may derive similar benefit to a first diagnosis of stage III patients if access to adjuvant therapy changes.

Does Centralization of Radical Prostatectomy Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Urinary Incontinence?

Background: On the basis of previous analyses of the incidence of urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP), the hospital RP volume threshold in the Netherlands was gradually increased from 20 per year in 2017, to 50 in 2018 and 100 from 2019 onwards. Objective: To evaluate the impact of hospital RP volumes on the incidence and risk of UI after RP (RP-UI). Design setting and participants: Patients who underwent RP during 2016-2020 were identified in the claims database of the largest health insurance company in the Netherlands. Incontinence was defined as an insurance claim for ≥1 pads/d. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The relationship between hospital RP volume (HV) and RP-UI was assessed via multivariable analysis adjusted for age, comorbidity, postoperative radiotherapy, and lymph node dissection. Results and limitations: RP-UI incidence nationwide and by RP volume category did not decrease significantly during the study period, and 5-yr RP-UI rates varied greatly among hospitals (19-85%). However, low-volume hospitals (≤120 RPs/yr) had a higher percentage of patients with RP-UI and higher variation in comparison to high-volume hospitals (>120 RPs/yr). In comparison to hospitals with low RP volumes throughout the study period, the risk of RP-UI was 29% lower in hospitals shifting from the low-volume to the high-volume category (>120 RPs/yr) and 52% lower in hospitals with a high RP volume throughout the study period (>120 RPs/yr for 5 yr). Conclusions: A focus on increasing hospital RP volumes alone does not seem to be sufficient to reduce the incidence of RP-UI, at least in the short term. Measurement of outcomes, preferably per surgeon, and the introduction of quality assurance programs are recommended. Patient summary: In the Netherlands, centralization of surgery to remove the prostate (RP) because of cancer has not yet improved the occurrence of urinary incontinence (UI) after surgery. Hospitals performing more than 120 RP operations per year had better UI outcomes. However, there was a big difference in UI outcomes between hospitals.

Patient perspectives on consequences of resection for colorectal cancer: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is diagnosed in approximately 500,000 patients each year in Europe, leading to a high number of patients having to cope with the consequences of resection for colorectal cancer. As treatment options tend to grow, more information on the effects of these treatments is needed to engage in shared decision-making. This study aims to explore the impact of resection for colorectal cancer on patients' daily life. METHODS: Patients (≥18 years of age) who underwent an oncological colorectal resection between 2018 and 2021 were selected. Purposeful sampling was used to include patients who differed in age, comorbidity conditions, types of (neo)adjuvant therapy, postoperative complications and the presence/absence of a stoma. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, guided by a topic guide. Interviews were fully transcribed and subsequently thematically analysed using the framework approach. Analyses were carried out using the following predefined themes: (1) daily life and activities; (2) psychological functioning; (3) social functioning; (4) sexual functioning; and (5) healthcare experiences. RESULTS: Sixteen patients with a follow-up period of between 0.6 and 4.4 years after surgery were included in this study. Participants reported several challenges experienced because of poor bowel function, a stoma, chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, fear of recurrence and sexual dysfunction. However, they reported these as not interfering much with daily life. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer treatment leads to several challenges and treatment-related health deficits. This is often not recognized by generic patient-reported outcome measures, but the findings on treatment-related health deficits presented in this study contain valuable insights which might contribute to improving colorectal cancer care, shared decision making and value-based health care.

A Survival Tree of Advanced Melanoma Patients with Brain Metastases Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

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.

Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Is There a Need for Standardization? Results of a Nationwide Survey.

Introduction: The NABON Breast Cancer Audit showed that more than 70% of the Dutch women undergoing surgery for breast cancer maintained their breast contour by breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or by immediate reconstruction after ablative surgery. The proportion of oncoplastic surgery applied in patients undergoing breast-conserving treatment remains unknown. The aim of our study was to assess the need for standardization of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) in an attempt to enable measurement of the quality of OPBCS. Methods: To gain a better understanding of current practice in OPBCS, we sent a questionnaire to all breast surgeons in The Netherlands who are members of the breast surgery working group (n = 134). Results: A total of 60 breast surgeons, representing different hospitals in The Netherlands, responded. 61.7% of the breast surgeons performed BCS on 60-100% of their patients. 68.3% responded that BCS was performed using OPS techniques in up to 40% of their patients. OPBCS was defined as level I volume displacement by 45.2% of the breast surgeons and as BCS performed by a breast surgeon and plastic surgeon together by 32.3% of the breast surgeons. 94.5% indicated that there is a need for standardization of the definition of OPBCS in The Netherlands. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that OPBCS is a major part of daily clinical practice of Dutch breast surgeons treating BC patients. Despite this, there is no clear definition of OPS in breast-conserving treatment in The Netherlands. Only after standardization can a classification code and quality indicator be initiated for OPBCS. Ultimately, this will facilitate improvement in quality of BC care.

The impact on health-related quality of a stoma or poor functional outcomes after rectal cancer surgery in Dutch patients: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: As the survival of patients with rectal cancer has improved in recent decades, more and more patients have to live with the consequences of rectal cancer surgery. An influential factor in long-term Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is the presence of a stoma. This study aimed to better understand the long-term consequences of a stoma and poor functional outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative surgery for a primary tumor located in the rectosigmoid and rectum between 2013 and 2020 were identified from the nationwide Prospective Dutch Colorectal Cancer (PLCRC) cohort study. Patients received the following questionnaires: EORTC-QLQ-CR29, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and the LARS-score at 12 months, 24 months and 36 months after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1,170 patients were included of whom 751 (64.2%) had no stoma, 122 (10.4%) had a stoma at primary surgery, 45 (3.8%) had a stoma at secondary surgery and 252 (21.5%) patients that underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR). Of all patients without a stoma, 41.4% reported major low-anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Patients without a stoma reported significantly better HRQoL. Moreover, patients without a stoma significantly reported an overall better HRQoL. CONCLUSION: The presence of a stoma and poor functional outcomes were both associated with reduced HRQoL. Patients with poor functional outcomes, defined as major LARS, reported a similar level of HRQoL compared to patients with a stoma. In addition, the HRQoL after rectal cancer surgery does not change significantly after the first year after surgery.

Real-world Outcomes of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab Combination Therapy in a Nation-wide Cohort of Advanced Melanoma Patients in the Netherlands.

In phase III trials, ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination therapy is highly efficacious for advanced melanoma, despite many treatment-related grades 3-4 adverse events. Here, we report real-world safety and survival outcomes of ipilimumab plus nivolumab for advanced melanoma. Patients with advanced melanoma who received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2021 were selected from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We evaluated response status at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. OS and PFS were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Separate analyses were performed for patients with or without brain metastases and for patients who met the inclusion criteria of the Checkmate-067 trial. In total, 709 patients received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Three hundred sixty (50.7%) patients experienced grade 3-4 adverse events, with 211 of the (58.6%) patients requiring hospital admission. The median treatment duration was 42 days (IQR = 31-139). At 24 months, disease control was achieved in 37% of patients. Median PFS since the start of treatment was 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.3-8.7), and median OS was 28.7 months (95% CI: 20.7-42.2). CheckMate-067 trial-like patients had a 4-year OS of 50% (95% CI: 43-59). Among patients with no asymptomatic or symptomatic brain metastases, the 4-year OS probabilities were 48% (95% CI: 41-55), 45% (95% CI: 35-57), and 32% (95% CI: 23-46). Ipilimumab plus nivolumab can achieve long-term survival in advanced melanoma patients in a real-world setting, including patients not represented in the CheckMate-067 trial. However, the proportion of patients with disease control in the real world is lower compared with clinical trials.

Response to checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy in melanoma patients with concurrent haematological malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with haematologic malignancies (HMs) have a higher risk of developing subsequent solid tumours, such as melanoma. Patients with HM were mostly excluded from clinical trials but potentially derive less benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to disease- or treatment-related T- or B-cell dysfunction. METHODS: All advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based treatment or targeted therapy between 2015 and 2021 were included from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Progression-free survival (PFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were analysed for patients with HM (HM+) and without HM (HM-). A cox model was used to account for confounders associated with PFS and MSS. RESULTS: In total, 4638 advanced melanoma patients received first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 1763), ipilimumab-nivolumab (n = 800), or BRAF(/MEK) inhibitors (n = 2075). Concurrent HMs were present for 46 anti-PD1-treated patients, 11 ipilimumab-nivolumab-treated patients and 43 BRAF(/MEK)-inhibitor-treated patients. In anti-PD-1-treated patients, the median PFS was 2.8 months for HM+ and 9.9 months for HM- (p = 0.01). MSS was 41.2 months for HM+ and 58.1 months for HM- (p = 0.00086). In multivariable analysis, the presence of an HM was significantly associated with higher risk of melanoma progression (HRadj 1.62; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.15-2.29; p = 0.006) and melanoma-related death (HRadj 1.74; 95% CI 1.09-2.78; p = 0.020). Median PFS and MSS for first-line BRAF(/MEK-) inhibitor-treated HM+ and HM- patients were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HM and advanced melanoma show significantly worse melanoma-related outcomes when treated with ICI, but not targeted therapy, compared to patients without HM. Clinicians should be aware of potentially altered effectiveness of ICI in patients with active HM.

Oncological Outcome After Lymph Node Dissection for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Although cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is common, lymph node metastases are relatively rare and are usually treated with lymph node dissection (LND). The aim of this study was to describe the clinical course and prognosis after LND for cSCC at all anatomical locations. METHODS: A retrospective search at three centres was performed to identify patients with lymph node metastases of cSCC who were treated with LND. Prognostic factors were identified by uni- and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 268 patients were identified with a median age of 74. All lymph node metastases were treated with LND, and 65% of the patients received adjuvant radiotherapy. After LND, 35% developed recurrent disease both locoregionally and distantly. Patients with more than one positive lymph node had an increased risk for recurrent disease. 165 (62%) patients died during follow-up of whom 77 (29%) due to cSCC. The 5-year OS- and DSS rate were 36% and 52%, respectively. Disease-specific survival was significantly worse in immunosuppressed patients, patients with primary tumors >2cm and patients with more than one positive lymph node. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that LND for patients with lymph node metastases of cSCC leads to a 5-year DSS of 52%. After LND, approximately one-third of the patients develop recurrent disease (locoregional and/or distant), which underscores the need for better systemic treatment options for locally advanced cSCC. The size of the primary tumor, more than one positive lymph node, and immunosuppression are independent predictors for risk of recurrence and disease-specific survival after LND for cSCC.

Surgical outcomes of lymph node dissections for stage III melanoma after neoadjuvant systemic therapy are not inferior to upfront surgery.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy has shown promising results in the treatment of high-risk stage III melanoma; however, the effects on surgery are currently unknown. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes, in terms of postoperative complications, postoperative morbidity, duration of surgery and textbook outcomes, of patients with high-risk stage III melanoma who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by lymph node dissection with patients who received an upfront lymph node dissection. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with high-risk stage III melanoma treated with neoadjuvant anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 in the OpACIN (NCT02437279) and OpACIN-neo (NCT02977052) trial between October 2014 and August 2018 were included and compared to patients who received upfront surgery in the same time period. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included in this study, of whom 44 received neoadjuvant systemic therapy and 76 underwent upfront surgery. There was no significant difference in the overall rate of postoperative complications between the neoadjuvant group and the upfront surgery group (31.8% versus 36.8%, p = 0.578) and neither in rate of postoperative morbidity (seroma 56.8% versus 57.9%, p = 0.908) (lymphedema 22.7% versus 13.2%, p = 0.175). There was a non-significant difference towards a slightly longer duration of surgery after neoadjuvant immunotherapy (105 versus 90 min, p = 0.077). There were no differences in textbook outcomes (50% versus 49%, p = 0.889). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the surgical outcomes for patients who underwent a lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant systemic immunotherapy or underwent upfront lymph node dissection for high-risk stage III melanoma are comparable.