Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment Strategies for Advanced Melanoma in Real Life in France.

Nine drugs have been marketed for 10 years for the treatment of advanced melanoma (AM). With half of patients reaching a second line, the optimal sequence of treatments remains unclear. To inform policy-makers about their efficiency, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential strategies in clinical practice in France, for BRAF-mutated and wild-type patients. A multistate model was developed to describe treatment sequences, associated costs, and health outcomes over 10 years. Sequences, clinical outcomes, utility scores, and economic data were extracted from the prospective Melbase cohort, collecting individual data in 1518 patients since 2013, from their AM diagnosis until their death. To adjust the differences in patients' characteristics among sequences, weighting by inverse probability was used. In the BRAF-mutated population, the MONO-targeted therapies (TT)-anti-PD1 sequence was the less expensive, whereas the anti-PD1-BI-TT sequence had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 180,441 EUR/QALY. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population, the three sequences constituted the cost-effective frontier, with ICERs ranging from 116 to 806,000 EUR/QALY. For BRAF-mutated patients, the sequence anti-PD1-BI-TT appeared to be the most efficient one in BRAF-mutated AM patients until 2018. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population until 2018, the sequence starting with IPI+NIVO appeared inefficient compared to anti-PD1, considering the extra cost for the QALY gained.

Management of adjuvant settings for Stage III melanoma patients in France prior to checkpoint inhibitors: epidemiological data from the RIC-Mel database.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies such as BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immunotherapies have been made available to treat melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the management of the French Stage III melanoma population after complete lymph node resection prior to new adjuvant therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A subgroup data analysis. RESULTS: Data from 1,835 patients were analysed (15.58% Stage IIIA, 39.24% Stage IIIB, 43.92% Stage IIIC and 1.25% Stage IIID). Superficial spreading melanoma was the most frequent (70.98% in Stage IIIA for whom mutation analysis was performed; BRAF mutation was identified in up to 62% Stage IIIA patients). Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 88.46% of Stage IIIA patients, 42.36% of Stage IIIB, 53.97% of Stage IIIC and 34.78% of Stage IIID. Up to 80% of Stage IIIA patients had no adjuvant treatment follow-up. Ulceration (p = 0.004; RR: 2.98; 95% CI: 1.4-6.3) and age at diagnosis (p = 0.0002; RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.02-1.06) were significant predictive factors for survival. Adjuvant interferon-α was administered in up to 13.04% of Stage IIID patients. CONCLUSION: Only a small number of Stage III melanoma patients were treated with interferon-α in adjuvant settings. New adjuvant therapies are currently having an effect on clinical practice in France, increasing survival and decreasing cost.

Quality-of-life assessment in French patients with metastatic melanoma in real life.

BACKGROUND: Significant progress was recently observed in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM). With >50% of patients now reaching a second line of treatment and a significant improvement in the survival rate, an assessment of quality of life (QoL) during the whole course of the disease becomes necessary. The objective of this study was to describe the QoL of patients with MM in France, from their diagnosis of advanced disease to their death, in real life. METHODS: QoL data were collected through MelBase, a prospective, French, multicentric cohort dedicated to the follow-up of adults with MM. QoL was assessed using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment (FACT)-Melanoma questionnaire at the time of study inclusion, every 3 months, and at the time of each treatment change until death. To assess longitudinal changes from baseline to death, mixed-effect models for repeated-measures analyses were used to control for baseline covariates. RESULTS: QoL was assessed in 1435 patients who were included in the study between 2013 and 2018. The median follow-up was 9.4 months, and 47% of patients died during follow-up. During first-line treatment, the model-based, mean utility score was 0.830 (95% CI, 0.818-0.843), the mean FACT-General score was 77.22 (95% CI, 76.23-78.22), and the mean FACT-Melanoma score was 129.46 (95% CI, 128.02-130.90). At the time of a change in treatment line, there was a decrease of -0.027 (95% CI, -0.03, -0.02) in the utility score, -1.82 (95% CI, -1.88, -1.76) in the FACT-General score, and -2.98 (95% CI, -3.05, -2.91) in the FACT-Melanoma score compared with first-line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the MelBase cohort, the QoL among patients with MM seems to be fairly stable over the whole disease course, although a small but significant decrease at time therapy is changed is observed.

Adverse events associated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in the COLUMBUS study: incidence, course and management.

BACKGROUND: Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated. RESULTS: The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event. CONCLUSION: Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38).

Assessment of quality of life using Skindex-16 in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma treated with vismodegib in the STEVIE study.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are limited in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. To report HRQoL outcomes based on STEVIE (NCT01367665), a phase 2 study of vismodegib safety in patients with metastatic BCC or locally advanced BCC that is unsuitable for surgery or radiotherapy. Skindex-16 and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) questionnaires were completed at baseline and at three subsequent visits. Clinically meaningful improvement was defined as a ≥10-point decrease from baseline (Skindex-16) or improvement of at least 3 points from baseline (MDASI). HRQoL-evaluable patients with locally advanced BCC (n = 730) had ≥10-point improvements in Skindex-16 emotion domain scores at all time points. Changes in symptom and function scores in these patients or in any domain scores at any time point in patients with metastatic BCC (n = 10) were not clinically meaningful. Of 10 patients with symptomatic metastatic BCC at baseline, six had ≥3-point improvements in MDASI symptom severity. Skindex-16 and MDASI showed improvement in HRQoL in vismodegib-treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic BCC or BCC.