Melanoma survival by age group: Population-based disparities for adolescent and young adult patients by stage, tumor thickness, and insurance type.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma survival literature predominantly represents patients >65 years of age. Study of younger patients may reveal potential age-group-specific differences in survival outcome. OBJECTIVE: Identify factors associated with differences in melanoma survival in 2 age groups, adolescents and young adults (AYAs; ages 15-39) and older adults (ages 40-64). METHODS: This population-based registry study included all cases (n = 81,597) of cutaneous melanoma diagnosed at ages 15 to 64 from 2004 to 2015 in California. Age-group-specific multivariable Cox hazard regressions were used. RESULTS: In the adjusted, age-group-specific models, AYA patients with stage IV melanoma had worse survival (hazard ratio: 20.39, 95% CI: 13.30-31.20) than was observed among older adults (hazard ratio: 10.79, 95% CI: 9.33-12.48). Thicker tumors and public insurance were also associated with worse survival for AYAs than observed in models for older adults. AYAs experienced better survival when detected at earlier stages. LIMITATIONS: Registry data do not routinely collect behavioral information or family history of melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Survival was much worse for AYAs with stage IV melanoma than observed among older adults. To improve AYA survival, early melanoma detection is critical. Greater awareness, suspicion, and screening for AYA melanoma may disrupt delays in diagnosis and reduce the excess burden of mortality from stage IV melanoma in young patients.

Health Care Utilization and Costs in Systemic Therapies for Metastatic Melanoma from 2016 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Widespread implementation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies for metastatic melanoma has led to a decline in melanoma-related mortality but increased healthcare costs. We aimed to determine how healthcare utilization varied by systemic, non-adjuvant melanoma treatment from 2016 to 2020. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with presumed stage IV metastatic melanoma receiving systemic therapy from 2016 to 2020 were identified in Optum, a nationwide commercial claims database. Treatment groups were nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab+nivolumab (combination-ICI), or BRAF+MEK inhibitor (BRAFi+MEKi) therapy. Outcomes included hospitalizations, days hospitalized, emergency room (ER) visits, outpatient visits, and healthcare costs per patient per month (pppm). Multivariable regression models were used to analyze whether cost and utilization outcomes varied by treatment group, with nivolumab as reference. RESULTS: Among 2018 adult patients with metastatic melanoma identified, mean (SD) age was 67 (15) years. From 2016 to 2020, nivolumab surpassed pembrolizumab as the most prescribed systemic melanoma therapy while combination-ICI and BRAFi+MEKi therapies remained stable. Relative to nivolumab, all other therapies were associated with increased total healthcare costs (combination-ICI: ß = $47 600 pppm, 95%CI $42 200-$53 100; BRAFi+MEKi: ß = $3810, 95%CI $365-$7260; pembrolizumab: ß = $6450, 95%CI $4420-$8480). Combination-ICI and BRAFi+MEKi therapies were associated with more inpatient hospital days. CONCLUSIONS: Amid the evolving landscape of systemic therapy for advanced melanoma, nivolumab monotherapy emerged as the most used and least costly systemic treatment from 2016 to 2020. Its sharp increase in use in 2018 and lower costs relative to pembrolizumab may in part be due to earlier adoption of less frequent dosing intervals.

Economics of alternative dosing strategies for pembrolizumab and nivolumab at a single academic cancer center.

BACKGROUND: The FDA initially approved pembrolizumab and nivolumab for doses based on patient weight, but subsequently amended approval to fixed doses. We estimated savings from novel dosing strategies based on real-world patient data from a single cancer center. METHODS: We analyzed all outpatient doses of pembrolizumab and nivolumab administered at three infusion centers affiliated with our academic hospital between July 1, 2018 and Oct 31, 2018. We estimated savings from several dosing strategies with and without vial sharing between patients. RESULTS: A total of 1029 doses of pembrolizumab or nivolumab were administered for multiple cancer types. For 77% of doses, the weight-based dose was less than the fixed dose. "Dose-minimization" (DM), defined as the lesser of weight-based and fixed dose decreased nivolumab spending by 9% without affecting pembrolizumab spending. DM plus vial sharing decreased pembrolizumab spending by 19% without affecting nivolumab. The differences in savings were due to availability of multiple vial sizes for nivolumab but not pembrolizumab. DM plus vial sharing for both drugs would have saved $1.5 million USD over the 4-month study period. CONCLUSION: New dosing strategies for pembrolizumab and nivolumab can generate large savings without anticipated decrease in efficacy. Barriers include FDA dosing labels, hospital policies against vial sharing, and inaccessibility of smaller vial sizes, which are currently available in other worldwide markets.