Is a History of Optimal Staging by Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in the Era Prior to Adjuvant Therapy Associated with Improved Outcome Once Melanoma Patients have Progressed to Advanced Disease?

INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is important for staging in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. Did having previously undergone SLNB also affect outcomes in patients once they have progressed to metastatic melanoma in the era prior to adjuvant therapy? METHODS: Data were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, a prospectively collected, nationwide database of patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma between 2012 and 2018. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) was compared between patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma, previously treated with a wide local excision (WLE) or WLE combined with SLNB as initial treatment of their primary tumor. Cox regression analyses were used to analyze the influence of different variables on MSS. RESULTS: In total, 2581 patients were included, of whom 1412 were treated with a WLE of the primary tumor alone and 1169 in whom this was combined with SLNB. At a median follow-up of 44 months from diagnosis of advanced melanoma, MSS was significantly longer in patients who had previously undergone SLNB {median 23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-29) vs. 18 months (95% CI 15-20) for patients treated with WLE alone; p = 0.002}. However, multivariate Cox regression did not identify SLNB as an independent favorable prognostic factor for MSS after diagnosis of advanced melanoma. CONCLUSION: Prior to the availability of adjuvant systemic therapy, once patients have unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma, there was no difference in disease outcome for patients who were or were not previously staged with SLNB.

Efficacy of first-line treatments for multiple myeloma patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation: a network meta-analysis.

Decision making for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) not transplant eligible (NTE) is complicated by a lack of head-to-head comparisons of standards of care, the increase in the choice of treatment modalities, and the promising results that are rapidly evolving from studies with novel regimens. To support evidence-based decision making, we performed a network meta-analysis for NTE MM patients that synthesizes direct and indirect evidence and enables a comparison of all treatments. Relevant randomized clinical trials were identified by a systematic literature review in EMBASE®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE®-in-Process and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for January 1999 to March 2016. Efficacy outcomes [i.e. the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for progression-free survival] were extracted and synthesized in a random effects network-meta analysis. In total, 24 studies were identified including 21 treatments. According to the network-meta analysis, the HR for progression-free survival was favorable for all NTE MM treatments compared to dexamethasone (HR: 0.19-0.90). Daratumumab-bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone and bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide with bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance were identified as the most effective treatments (HR: 0.19, 95%CI: 0.08-0.45 and HR: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.10-0.51, respectively). HR and 95%CI for currently recommended treatments, bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, and lenalidomide-dexamethasone compared to dexamethasone, were 0.31 (0.16-0.59), 0.39 (0.20-0.75), and 0.44 (0.29-0.65), respectively. In addition to identifying the most effective treatment options, we illustrate the additional value and evidence of network meta-analysis in clinical practice. In the current treatment landscape, the results of network meta-analysis may support evidence-based decisions and ultimately help to optimize treatment and outcomes of NTE MM patients.

Potential cost savings owing to the route of administration of oncology drugs: a microcosting study of intravenous and subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab and rituximab in the Netherlands.

There is little evidence on the costs associated with the route of administration of oncology drugs. We investigated time and resource use for hospitals and patients and compared healthcare and societal costs for intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) administration of trastuzumab and rituximab. Data for the preparation and administration of both drugs were collected at the hospital pharmacy and at the oncology day care unit. Patients completed a questionnaire for obtaining information on societal costs (productivity losses, informal care and traveling expenses). A total of 126 patients were recruited in six hospitals; 82 received trastuzumab (37 IV and 45 SC) and 44 received rituximab (23 IV and 21 SC). The costs per administration (including societal cost but excluding drug costs) were &OV0556;167 and &OV0556;264 for IV and &OV0556;76 and &OV0556;146 for SC trastuzumab and rituximab, respectively. The costs for SC administration were lower in all categories. The largest cost component was related to time spent at the day care unit (overhead costs). This resulted in savings of &OV0556;47 for SC trastuzumab and &OV0556;69 for SC rituximab. The costs related to time of healthcare professionals was &OV0556;9 lower for both drugs. The costs for consumables resulted in another &OV0556;12 savings. Societal costs were &OV0556;22 lower for SC trastuzumab and &OV0556;28 lower for SC rituximab. Although administration costs are relatively a small part of the total costs, important savings can be generated by switching to an SC route of administration especially because a large number of patients receive oncology drugs and patients receive more than one administration.

Real-world healthcare costs of ipilimumab in patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma in The Netherlands.

There is limited evidence on the costs associated with ipilimumab. We investigated healthcare costs of all Dutch patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma who were treated with ipilimumab. Data were retrieved from the nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Costs were determined by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use. A total of 807 patients who were diagnosed between July 2012 and July 2015 received ipilimumab in Dutch practice. The mean (median) episode duration was 6.27 (4.61) months (computed from the start of ipilimumab until the start of a next treatment, death, or the last date of follow-up). The average total healthcare costs amounted to &OV0556;81 484, but varied widely (range: &OV0556;18 131-&OV0556;160 002). Ipilimumab was by far the most important cost driver (&OV0556;73 739). Other costs were related to hospital admissions (&OV0556;3323), hospital visits (&OV0556;1791), diagnostics and imaging (&OV0556;1505), radiotherapy (&OV0556;828), and surgery (&OV0556;297). Monthly costs for resource use other than ipilimumab were &OV0556;1997 (SD: &OV0556;2629). Treatment-naive patients (n=344) had higher total costs compared with previously-treated patients (n=463; &OV0556;85 081 vs. &OV0556;78 811). Although patients with colitis (n=106) had higher costs for resource use other than ipilimumab (&OV0556;11 426) compared with patients with other types of immune-related adverse events (n=90; &OV0556;9850) and patients with no immune-related adverse event (n=611; &OV0556;6796), they had lower total costs (&OV0556;76 075 vs. &OV0556;87 882 and &OV0556;81 480, respectively). In conclusion, this nation-wide study provides valuable insights into the healthcare costs of advanced cutaneous melanoma patients who were treated with ipilimumab in clinical practice. Most of the costs were attributable to ipilimumab, but the costs and its distribution varied considerably across subgroups.

Real-world use, safety, and survival of ipilimumab in metastatic cutaneous melanoma in The Netherlands.

Phase III trials with ipilimumab showed an improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the use and safety of ipilimumab, and the survival of all patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (N=807) receiving ipilimumab in real-world clinical practice in The Netherlands using data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients who were registered between July 2012 and July 2015 were included and analyzed according to their treatment status: treatment-naive (N=344) versus previously-treated (N=463). Overall, 70% of treatment-naive patients and 62% of previously-treated patients received all four planned doses of ipilimumab. Grade 3 and 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 29% of treatment-naive patients and 21% of previously-treated patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Median time to first event was 5.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.7-6.5 months] in treatment-naive patients and 4.4 months (95% CI: 4.0-4.7 months) in previously-treated patients. Median overall survival was 14.3 months (95% CI: 11.6-16.7 months) in treatment-naive patients and 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.6-9.6 months) in previously-treated patients. In both patient groups, an elevated lactate dehydrogenase level (hazard ratio: 2.25 and 1.70 in treatment-naive and previously-treated patients, respectively) and American Joint Committee on Cancer M1c-stage disease (hazard ratio: 1.81 and 1.83, respectively) were negatively associated with overall survival. These real-world outcomes of ipilimumab slightly differed from outcomes in phase III trials. Although phase III trials are crucial for establishing efficacy, real-world data are of great added value enhancing the generalizability of outcomes of ipilimumab in clinical practice.

The increasing importance of a continence nurse specialist to improve outcomes and save costs of urinary incontinence care: an analysis of future policy scenarios.

BACKGROUND: In an ageing population, it is inevitable to improve the management of care for community-dwelling elderly with incontinence. A previous study showed that implementation of the Optimum Continence Service Specification (OCSS) for urinary incontinence in community-dwelling elderly with four or more chronic diseases results in a reduction of urinary incontinence, an improved quality of life, and lower healthcare and lower societal costs. The aim of this study was to explore future consequences of the OCSS strategy of various healthcare policy scenarios in an ageing population. METHODS: We adapted a previously developed decision analytical model in which the OCSS new care strategy was operationalised as the appointment of a continence nurse specialist located within the general practice in The Netherlands. We used a societal perspective including healthcare costs (healthcare providers, treatment costs, insured containment products, insured home care), and societal costs (informal caregiving, containment products paid out-of-pocket, travelling expenses, home care paid out-of-pocket). All outcomes were computed over a three-year time period using two different base years (2014 and 2030). Settings for future policy scenarios were based on desk-research and expert opinion. RESULTS: Our results show that implementation of the OSCC new care strategy for urinary incontinence would yield large health gains in community dwelling elderly (2030: 2592-2618 QALYs gained) and large cost-savings in The Netherlands (2030: health care perspective: €32.4 Million - €72.5 Million; societal perspective: €182.0 Million - €250.6 Million). Savings can be generated in different categories which depends on healthcare policy. The uncertainty analyses and extreme case scenarios showed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the OCSS new care strategy for urinary incontinence results in an improvement in the quality of life of community-dwelling elderly, a reduction of the costs for payers and affected elderly, and a reduction in time invested by carers. Various realistic policy scenarios even forecast larger health gains and cost-savings in the future. More importantly, the longer the implementation is postponed the larger the savings foregone. The future organisation of healthcare affects the category in which the greatest savings will be generated.

Balancing the Optimal and the Feasible: A Practical Guide for Setting Up Patient Registries for the Collection of Real-World Data for Health Care Decision Making Based on Dutch Experiences.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article was to provide practical guidance in setting up patient registries to facilitate real-world data collection for health care decision making. METHODS: This guidance was based on our experiences and involvement in setting up patient registries in oncology in the Netherlands. All aspects were structured according to 1) mission and goals ("the Why"), 2) stakeholders and funding ("the Who"), 3) type and content ("the What"), and 4) identification and recruitment of patients, data handling, and pharmacovigilance ("the How"). RESULTS: The mission of most patient registries is improving patient health by improving the quality of patient care; monitoring and evaluating patient care is often the primary goal ("the Why"). It is important to align the objectives of the registry and agree on a clear and functional governance structure with all stakeholders ("the Who"). There is often a trade off between reliability, validity, and specificity of data elements and feasibility of data collection ("the What"). Patient privacy should be carefully protected, and address (inter-)national and local regulations. Patient registries can reveal unique safety information, but it can be challenging to comply with pharmacovigilance guidelines ("the How"). CONCLUSIONS: It is crucial to set up an efficient patient registry that serves its aims by collecting the right data of the right patient in the right way. It can be expected that patient registries will become the new standard alongside randomized controlled trials due to their unique value.

Policymaker, please consider your needs carefully: does outcomes research in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma reduce policymaker uncertainty regarding value for money of bortezomib?

INTRODUCTION: Dutch policy regulations require outcomes research for the assessment of appropriate drug use and cost-effectiveness after 4 years of temporary reimbursement. We investigated whether outcomes research reduced policymaker uncertainty regarding the question whether the costs are worth public funding. METHODS: Our cohort study included 139 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who were treated outside of a clinical study; 72 received bortezomib and 67 did not receive bortezomib. Detailed data were retrospectively collected from medical records in 38% of Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: All patients received second-line treatment; 65%, 40%, and 14%, received three, four, or five or more lines of therapy. Neither a specific treatment sequence nor an appropriate comparator could be identified because of large variation in regimes. Kaplan-Meier curves showed an increased overall survival (mean [median] 29.5 [33.2] vs. 28.0 [21.6] months) for patients treated with bortezomib (Wilcoxon P = 0.01). Total mean costs were €81,626 (range €17,793-€229,783) and €52,760 (range €748-€179,571) for patients receiving bortezomib and patients not receiving bortezomib, respectively. Patients treated with bortezomib, however, were not comparable to other patients despite attempts to correct for confounding. Therefore, it was impossible to develop a feasible model to obtain a valid incremental cost-effectiveness estimate. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to develop evidence on bortezomib's use, effects, and costs in everyday practice. Much uncertainty, however, remained regarding its cost-effectiveness. Policymakers should carefully consider whether outcomes research sufficiently decreases uncertainty or whether other options (e.g., finance- and/or outcomes-based risk-sharing arrangements) are more appropriate to ensure sufficient value for money of expensive drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of Novel Treatment Sequences for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

Importance: Although the number of treatments for elderly patients with non-transplant-eligible (NTE) multiple myeloma (MM) has increased substantially, evidence is lacking on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel treatment sequences. Objective: To determine the optimal sequence of treatment for patients with NTE MM from the perspective of the patient, physician, and society. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using data from a Dutch observational registry, this economic evaluation combined evidence from network meta-analyses in a patient-level simulation model and modeled time-to-event and types of events from a hospital perspective with a lifetime horizon. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to September 2020. Interventions: Thirty treatment sequences, including up to 3 lines of therapy, were compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP)-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (LenDex)-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (PomDex). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes of the model were overall survival (OS), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness. Results: Sequences starting with daratumumab-VMP (second line: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone or elotuzumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide-maintenance bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) (second line: daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) had the largest expected OS (7.5 years), which is 3.5 additional life-years compared with VMP-LenDex-PomDex. Total costs per patient for these sequences ranged between $786 024 and $1 085 794. The sequence VMPT-VT-carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone-panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio ($98 585 per life-year gained and $132 707 per QALY gained vs VMP-LenDex-PomDex). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that sequences including novel treatments were highly effective, but the cost-effectiveness ratios were above currently accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treating MM with novel agents necessitates either a large increase in budget or a substantial reduction of drug costs by price negotiations, and these findings can support these reimbursement decisions and price negotiations.

Stage-specific trends in incidence and survival of cutaneous melanoma in the Netherlands (2003-2018): A nationwide population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine stage-specific trends in the incidence and survival of cutaneous melanoma in the Netherlands between 2003 and 2018, as well as the uptake of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and novel drugs during that period. METHODS: Data were obtained from the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry for all patients diagnosed with invasive primary cutaneous melanoma (n = 60,267). We presented age-standardized incidence rates, the proportion of patients with an SLNB, the proportion of patients who received a novel drug (for their primary diagnosis) and one- and five-year relative survival rates. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2018, the incidence rate increased from 10.9 to 23.9 for men and from 15.6 to 27.3 for women. This increase reflected the increasing incidence rate of patients with stage I and III. The proportion of patients with an SLNB increased from 23% to 64%. A reasonable increase was observed in the proportion of patients with a positive outcome (from 2% to 11%). For patients with stage IV, there was a shift from chemotherapy towards novel drugs as from 2013. The five-year relative survival rate increased from 81% to 92% for men and from 88% to 96% for women. This increase reflected the increasing five-year relative survival rate of patients with stage II, III, and IV. CONCLUSION: We observed an increase in incidence for patients with stage I and III and an improvement in survival for patients with stage II, III and IV. These trends can be partly explained by the introduction of the SLNB and the novel drugs.

Real-world healthcare costs of localized and regionally advanced cutaneous melanoma in the Netherlands.

The aim of this study was to provide insight into real-world healthcare costs of patients initially diagnosed with localized or regionally advanced melanoma in three Dutch hospitals between 2003 and 2011. Patients were stratified according to their stage at diagnosis and recurrence status. Costs were calculated by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use and reported for the full disease course, the initial treatment episode, and treatment episodes for disease recurrence (stratified by type of recurrence). We included 198 patients with localized melanoma and 98 patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Total costs were much higher for patients with disease recurrence than for patients without disease recurrence: €20 007 versus €3032 for patients with localized melanoma and €19 519 versus €5951 for patients with regionally advanced melanoma. This was owing to the costs of disease recurrence because the costs of the initial treatment were comparable between patients with and without disease recurrence. Costs of disease recurrence were dependent on the type of recurrence: €4414, €4604, €8129 and €10 393 for a local recurrence, intralymphatic metastases, regional lymph node metastases and distant metastases, respectively. In conclusion, healthcare costs of patients with localized and regionally advanced melanoma were rather low for the initial treatment. Costs became, however, more substantial in case of disease recurrence. In the context of a rapidly changing treatment paradigm, it remains crucial to monitor treatment outcomes as well as healthcare expenditures.

The unit costs of inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments in the fields of oncology and hematology.

OBJECTIVES: Many economic evaluations are conducted in the fields of oncology and hematology, partially owing to the introduction of new expensive drugs in this field. Even though inpatient days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments are frequently the main drivers of total treatment costs, their unit costs often lack generalizability. Therefore, we aimed to determine the unit costs of inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments specifically for oncological and hematological diseases in The Netherlands from the hospital's perspective. METHODS: Unit costs were collected from 30 oncological and hematological departments of 6 university and 24 general hospitals. Costs included direct labor and indirect labor, hotel and nutrition, overheads and capital. Ordinary least squares regression models were constructed to examine the degree of association between unit costs and hospital and hospital department characteristics. All costs were based on Euro 2007 cost data. RESULTS: At university hospitals, the unit costs per inpatient day were determined at €633 in oncological and €680 in hematological departments. At general hospitals, the mean costs per inpatient day were €400. Unit costs for inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits. and daycare treatments equalled the relative ratio 100:21:44. Direct labor costs were the major cost driver and the type of hospital (university, yes/no) was a strong predictor of unit costs. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provided unit costs for inpatient hospital days, outpatient visits, and daycare treatments in the fields of oncology and hematology. The results may be used as Dutch reference unit prices in economic evaluations assessing oncological and hematological diseases.

Healthcare Costs of Metastatic Cutaneous Melanoma in the Era of Immunotherapeutic and Targeted Drugs.

Immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs improved survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. There is, however, a lack of evidence regarding their healthcare costs in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to provide insight into real-world healthcare costs of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Data were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry for patients who were registered between July 2012 and December 2018. Mean total/monthly costs per patient were reported for all patients, patients who did not receive systemic therapy, and patients who received systemic therapy. Furthermore, mean episode/monthly costs per line of therapy and drug were reported for patients who received systemic therapy. Mean total/monthly costs were € 89,240/€ 6809: € 7988/€ 2483 for patients who did not receive systemic therapy (n = 784) and € 105,078/€ 7652 for patients who received systemic therapy (n = 4022). Mean episode/monthly costs were the highest for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (€ 79,675/€ 16,976), ipilimumab monotherapy (€ 79,110/€ 17,252), and dabrafenib plus trametinib (€ 77,053/€ 12,015). Dacarbazine yielded the lowest mean episode/monthly costs (€ 6564/€ 2027). Our study showed that immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs had a large impact on real-world healthcare costs. As new drugs continue entering the treatment landscape for (metastatic) melanoma, it remains crucial to monitor whether the benefits of these drugs outweigh their costs.

Surgery for Unresectable Stage IIIC and IV Melanoma in the Era of New Systemic Therapy.

Opportunities for surgical treatment in metastatic melanoma patients have re-emerged due to the development of novel systemic therapeutics over the past decade. The aim of this study is to present data on outcomes of surgery in patients with unresectable stage IIIC and IV melanoma, who have previously been treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Data was extracted from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) on 154 patients obtaining disease control to systemic therapy and undergoing subsequent surgery. Disease control was defined as a complete response (CR), which was seen in 3.2% of patients; a partial response (PR), seen in 46.1% of patients; or stable disease (SD), seen in 44.2% of patients. At a median follow-up of 10.0 months (interquartile range 4-22) after surgery, the median overall survival (OS) had not been reached in our cohort and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months (95% CI 6.3-11.7). A CR or PR at first follow-up after surgery was associated with both a better OS and PFS compared to stable or progressive disease (p < 0.001). We conclude that selected patients can benefit from surgery after achieving disease control with systemic therapy.

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes in advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments. RESULTS: The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.

Stage-specific disease recurrence and survival in localized and regionally advanced cutaneous melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate stage-specific survival from diagnosis, stage-specific disease recurrence, and post-recurrence survival in patients diagnosed with localized and regionally advanced cutaneous melanoma. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted in six Dutch hospitals. We included patients with a first diagnosis of stage I, II, or III melanoma between January 2003 and December 2011. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize time to first recurrence and type of first recurrence. Overall survival (OS) from diagnosis and post-recurrence OS were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 3,093 patients had a first diagnosis of stage I (n = 2,299), II (n = 565), or III (n = 229) melanoma. Median OS was not yet reached for patients with stage I, 9.5 years for patients with stage II, and 6.8 years for patients with stage III. Fifty-seven patients (8%) with stage IB, 137 patients (29%) with stage II, and 81 patients (47%) with stage III developed disease recurrence. Median time to first recurrence was 2.8, 1.5, and 1.0 years for patients with stage IB, II, and III, respectively. Most patients (79%) developed regional lymph node or distant metastases as first recurrence. Median post-recurrence OS was 2.8, 3.9, and 0.5 years for patients with intralymphatic, regional lymph node, and distant metastases, respectively. CONCLUSION: A substantial number of patients developed disease recurrence. Of these patients, a considerably high proportion developed distant metastases which had a great impact on survival. Identifying disease recurrence at its earliest stage is crucial because metastatic melanoma remains incurable for most patients.

Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: Treatment Strategies and Survival-Results from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults. Up to 50% of UM patients will develop metastases. We present data of 175 metastatic UM patients diagnosed in the Netherlands between July 2012 and March 2018. In our cohort, elevated lactate dehydrogenase level (LDH) is an important factor associated with poorer survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 9.0, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 5.63-14.35), and the presence of liver metastases is negatively associated with survival (HR 2.09, 95%CI 1.07-4.08). We used data from the nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) providing a complete overview of the location of metastases at time of stage IV disease. In 154 (88%) patients, the liver was affected, and only 3 patients were reported to have brain metastases. In 63 (36%) patients, mutation analysis was performed, showing a GNA11 mutation in 28.6% and a GNAQ mutation in 49.2% of the analyzed patients. In the absence of standard care of treatment options, metastatic UM patients are often directed to clinical trials. Patients participating in clinical trials are often subject to selection and usually do not represent the entire metastatic UM population. By using our nation-wide cohort, we are able to describe real-life treatment choices made in metastatic UM patients and 1-year survival rates in selected groups of patients.

Vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma patients in real-world clinical practice: prognostic factors associated with clinical outcomes.

The aim of this population-based study was to identify the factors associated with clinical outcomes in vemurafenib-treated patients and to evaluate outcomes across subgroups of patients with different risk profiles. Data were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Time to next treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) of all metastatic melanoma patients who received vemurafenib between 2012 and 2015 were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. A risk score was developed on the basis of all prognostic factors associated with TTNT and OS derived from multivariable Cox regression analyses. Patients were stratified according to the presence of prognostic risk factors by counting the number of factors, ranging from 0 to 6. A total of 626 patients received vemurafenib with a median follow-up of 35.8 months. The median TTNT and OS were 4.7 months [95% confidence intervals (CI): 4.4-5.1] and 7.3 months (95% CI: 6.6-8.0). The strongest prognostic factors were serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, number of organ sites involved and brain metastases. Patients with a favourable risk profile (no risk factors) had a median TTNT and OS of 7.1 (95% CI: 5.8-8.5) and 15.4 months (95% CI: 10.0-20.9). The median OS more than halved for patients with greater than or equal to 2 risk factors compared with patients with no risk factors. The clinical outcomes of vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with a favourable risk profile are comparable with the results of the trials. Combining prognostic factors into a risk score could be valuable to stratify patients into favourable and poor-prognosis groups.

Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcomes in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Purpose Since 2000, many new treatment options have become available for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM) after a long period in which dexamethasone and melphalan had been the standard treatment. Direct comparisons of these novel treatments, however, are lacking. This makes it extremely difficult to evaluate the relative added value of each new treatment. Our aim was to synthesize all efficacy evidence, enabling a comparison of all current treatments for R/R MM. Methods We performed a systematic literature review to identify all publicly available phase III randomized controlled trial evidence. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Web site www.ClinicalTrials.gov . In addition, two trials presented at two international hematology congresses (ie, ASCO 2016 and European Hematology Association 2016) were added to include the most recent evidence. In total, 17 randomized controlled trials were identified, including 18 treatment options. The evidence was synthesized using a conventional network meta-analysis. To include all treatments within one network, two treatment options were combined: (1) bortezomib monotherapy and bortezomib plus dexamethasone, and (2) thalidomide monotherapy and thalidomide plus dexamethasone. Results The combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone was identified as the best treatment. It was most favorable in terms of (1) hazard ratio for progression-free survival (0.13; 95% credible interval, 0.09 to 0.19), and (2) probability of being best (99% of the simulations). This treatment combination reduced the risk of progression or death by 87% versus dexamethasone, 81% versus bortezomib plus dexamethasone, and 63% versus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. Conclusion Our network meta-analysis provides a complete overview of the relative efficacy of all available treatments for R/R MM. Until additional data from randomized studies are available, on the basis of this analysis, the combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone seems to be the best treatment option.