Multidisciplinary recommendations for essential baseline functional and laboratory tests to facilitate early diagnosis and management of immune-related adverse events among cancer patients.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have fundamentally changed the treatment landscape of various cancers. While ICI treatments result in improved survival, quality of life and are cost-effective, the majority of patients experience at least one immune-related adverse event (irAE). Many of these side effects cause little discomfort or are asymptomatic; however, irAEs can affect any organ and are potentially life-threatening. Consequently, early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of irAEs are critical for optimizing long-term outcomes and quality of life in affected patients. Some irAEs are diagnosed according to typical symptoms, others by abnormal findings from diagnostic tests. While there are various guidelines addressing the management of irAEs, recommendations for the early recognition of irAEs as well as the optimal extent and frequency of laboratory tests are mostly lacking. In clinical practice, blood sampling is usually performed before each ICI administration (i.e., every 2-3 weeks), often for several months, representing a burden for patients as well as health care systems. In this report, we propose essential laboratory and functional tests to improve the early detection and management of irAEs and in cancer patients treated with ICIs. These multidisciplinary expert recommendations regarding essential laboratory and functional tests can be used to identify possible irAEs at an early time point, initiate appropriate interventions to improve patient outcomes, and reduce the burden of blood sampling during ICI treatment.

Ipilimumab alone or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-1) induces long-term disease control in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic melanoma; however, two-thirds of patients are resistant and will require further treatment. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab) compared with ipilimumab monotherapy in patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (hereafter referred to as anti-PD-[L]1). METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study, was done at 15 melanoma centres in Australia, Europe, and the USA. We included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic melanoma (unresectable stage III and IV), who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (innate or acquired resistance) and who then received either ipilimumab monotherapy or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab or nivolumab), based on availability of therapies or clinical factors determined by the physician, or both. Tumour response was assessed as per standard of care (CT or PET-CT scans every 3 months). The study endpoints were objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety of ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1. FINDINGS: We included 355 patients with metastatic melanoma, resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab), who had been treated with ipilimumab monotherapy (n=162 [46%]) or ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (n=193 [54%]) between Feb 1, 2011, and Feb 6, 2020. At a median follow-up of 22·1 months (IQR 9·5-30·9), the objective response rate was higher with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (60 [31%] of 193 patients) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (21 [13%] of 162 patients; p<0·0001). Overall survival was longer in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group (median overall survival 20·4 months [95% CI 12·7-34·8]) than with ipilimumab monotherapy (8·8 months [6·1-11·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival was also longer with ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 (median 3·0 months [95% CI 2·6-3·6]) than with ipilimumab (2·6 months [2·4-2·9]; HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·87; p=0·0019). Similar proportions of patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events in both groups (59 [31%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 54 [33%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were diarrhoea or colitis (23 [12%] of 193 patients in the ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 group vs 33 [20%] of 162 patients in the ipilimumab group) and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase (24 [12%] vs 15 [9%]). One death occurred with ipilimumab 26 days after the last treatment: a colon perforation due to immune-related pancolitis. INTERPRETATION: In patients who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1, ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 seemed to yield higher efficacy than ipilimumab with a higher objective response rate, longer progression-free, and longer overall survival, with a similar rate of grade 3-5 toxicity. Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 should be favoured over ipilimumab alone as a second-line immunotherapy for these patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: None.

The combination of stereotactic radiosurgery with immune checkpoint inhibition or targeted therapy in melanoma patients with brain metastases: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence pointing to a synergistic effect of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with concurrent immunotherapy or targeted therapy in patients with melanoma brain metastases (BM) is increasing. We aimed to analyze the effect on overall survival (OS) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or BRAF/MEK inhibitors initiated during the 9 weeks before or after SRS. We also evaluated the prognostic value of patients' and disease characteristics as predictors of OS in patients treated with SRS. METHODS: We identified patients with BM from cutaneous or unknown primary origin melanoma treated with SRS between 2011 and 2018. RESULTS: We included 84 patients. The median OS was 12 months (95% CI 9-20 months). The median follow-up was 30 months (95% CI 28-49). Twenty-eight patients with newly diagnosed BM initiated anti-PD-1 +/-CTLA-4 therapy (n = 18), ipilimumab monotherapy (n = 10) or BRAF+/- MEK inhibitors (n = 11), during the 9 weeks before or after SRS. Patients who received anti-PD-1 +/-CTLA-4 mAb showed an improved survival in comparison to ipilimumab monotherapy (OS 24 vs. 7.5 months; HR 0.32, 95% 0.12-0.83, p = 0.02) and BRAF +/-MEK inhibitors (OS 24 vs. 7 months, respectively; HR 0.11, 95% 0.04-0.34, p = 0.0001). This benefit remained significant when compared to the subgroup of patients treated with dual BRAF/MEK inhibition (BMi) (n = 5). In a multivariate Cox regression analysis an age > 65, synchronous BM, > 2 metastatic sites, > 4 BM, and an ECOG > 1 were correlated with poorer prognosis. A treatment with anti-PD-1+/-CTLA-4 mAbs within 9 weeks of SRS was associated with better outcomes. The presence of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels ≥ 2xULN at BM diagnosis was associated with lower OS (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03-2.50; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The concurrent administration of anti-PD-1+/-CTLA-4 mAbs with SRS was associated with improved survival in melanoma patients with newly diagnosed BM. In addition to CNS tumor burden, the extension of systemic disease retains its prognostic value in patients treated with SRS. Elevated serum LDH levels are predictors of poor outcome in these patients.

Trametinib Induces the Stabilization of a Dual GNAQ p.Gly48Leu- and FGFR4 p.Cys172Gly-Mutated Uveal Melanoma. The Role of Molecular Modelling in Personalized Oncology.

We report a case of an uveal melanoma patient with GNAQ p.Gly48Leu who responded to MEK inhibition. At the time of the molecular analysis, the pathogenicity of the mutation was unknown. A tridimensional structural analysis showed that Gαq can adopt active and inactive conformations that lead to substantial changes, involving three important switch regions. Our molecular modelling study predicted that GNAQ p.Gly48Leu introduces new favorable interactions in its active conformation, whereas little or no impact is expected in its inactive form. This strongly suggests that GNAQ p.Gly48Leu is a possible tumor-activating driver mutation, consequently triggering the MEK pathway. In addition, we also found an FGFR4 p.Cys172Gly mutation, which was predicted by molecular modelling analysis to lead to a gain of function by impacting the Ig-like domain 2 folding, which is involved in FGF binding and increases the stability of the homodimer. Based on these analyses, the patient received the MEK inhibitor trametinib with a lasting clinical benefit. This work highlights the importance of molecular modelling for personalized oncology.

Effects of CTLA-4 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms on Toxicity of Ipilimumab-Containing Regimens in Patients With Advanced Stage Melanoma.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) gene, an inhibitor of T-cell priming, are associated with auto and alloimmunity. Studies implied a role for these SNPs as surrogate markers for immunotherapy-outcome in patients with melanoma. However, no predictive SNPs are defined to date. We analyzed different CTLA-4 SNPs in a large multicenter cohort of patients with ipilimumab-treated melanoma and investigated possible correlations with treatment-related outcomes. Archival blood and/or tumor tissue samples were collected from 361 patients with advanced-stage ipilimumab-treated (±nivolumab) in 6 Swiss and Dutch hospitals. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry based DNA genotyping was performed for 10 different CTLA-4 SNPs: 49A>G, CT60G>A, Jo27T>C, Jo30G>A, Jo31G>T, -658C>T, -1722T>C, -1661A>G, 318C>T, and C>T rs1863800. Associations between different allele genotypes and occurrence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and survival were tested using univariable logistic regressions or Cox proportional hazard models. 262/361 (73%) patients could be analyzed; 65% of those were males, the median age was 58 years, 39% showed a partial or complete response, and 65% had ≥1 AEs. A TT-genotype of -1722T>C SNP was significantly associated with a lower incidence of grade ≥3 AEs ( P = 0.049), whereas the GG-genotype of CT60G>A correlated with a higher incidence of grade ≥3 AEs ( P = 0.026). The TT-genotype of Jo27T>C SNP ( P = 0.056) and GG-genotype of Jo31G>T ( P = 0.046) were associated with overall survival. CTLA-4 SNPs might predict treatment-related outcomes in patients with melanoma receiving ipilimumab. Confirmatory studies are needed to fully exploit those findings as predictive biomarkers for ipilimumab AEs.

The features and management of acquired resistance to PD1-based therapy in metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy (PD1) either alone or with anti-CTLA-4 (CTLA4), has high initial response rates, however 20% of patients (pts) with complete response (CR) and 30% with partial response (PR) within 12 months of treatment experience subsequent disease progression by 6 years. The nature and optimal management of this acquired resistance (AR) remains unknown. METHODS: Pts from 16 centres who responded to PD1-based therapy and who later progressed were examined. Demographics, disease characteristics and subsequent treatments were evaluated. RESULTS: 299 melanoma pts were identified, median age 64y, 44% BRAFV600m. 172 (58%) received PD1 alone, 114 (38%) PD1/CTLA4 and 13 (4%) PD1 and an investigational drug. 90 (30%) pts had CR, 209 (70%) PR. Median time to AR was 12.6 mo (95% CI, 11.3, 14.2). Most (N = 193, 65%) progressed in a single organ site, and in a solitary lesion (N = 151, 51%). The most frequent sites were lymph nodes (38%) and brain (25%). Management at AR included systemic therapy (ST, 45%), local therapy (LT) +ST (31%), LT alone (21%), or observation (3%). There was no statistical difference in PFS2 or OS based on management, however, PFS2 was numerically superior for pts treated with ST alone who progressed off PD1 therapy than those who progressed on PD1 (2-year PFS2 42% versus 25%, p = 0.249). mOS from AR was 38.0 months (95% CI, 29.5-NR); longer in single-site versus multi-site progression (2-year OS 70% vs 54%, p < 0·001). CONCLUSIONS: Acquired resistance to PD1 therapy in melanoma is largely oligometastatic, and pts may have a favorable survival outcome following salvage treatment.

Interactive process mining of cancer treatment sequences with melanoma real-world data.

The growing availability of clinical real-world data (RWD) represents a formidable opportunity to complement evidence from randomized clinical trials and observe how oncological treatments perform in real-life conditions. In particular, RWD can provide insights on questions for which no clinical trials exist, such as comparing outcomes from different sequences of treatments. To this end, process mining is a particularly suitable methodology for analyzing different treatment paths and their associated outcomes. Here, we describe an implementation of process mining algorithms directly within our hospital information system with an interactive application that allows oncologists to compare sequences of treatments in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival and best overall response. As an application example, we first performed a RWD descriptive analysis of 303 patients with advanced melanoma and reproduced findings observed in two notorious clinical trials: CheckMate-067 and DREAMseq. Then, we explored the outcomes of an immune-checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge after a first progression on immunotherapy versus switching to a BRAF targeted treatment. By using interactive process-oriented RWD analysis, we observed that patients still derive long-term survival benefits from immune-checkpoint inhibitors rechallenge, which could have direct implications on treatment guidelines for patients able to carry on immune-checkpoint therapy, if confirmed by external RWD and randomized clinical trials. Overall, our results highlight how an interactive implementation of process mining can lead to clinically relevant insights from RWD with a framework that can be ported to other centers or networks of centers.

Multilingual RECIST classification of radiology reports using supervised learning.

Objectives: The objective of this study is the exploration of Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing techniques to support the automatic assignment of the four Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) scales based on radiology reports. We also aim at evaluating how languages and institutional specificities of Swiss teaching hospitals are likely to affect the quality of the classification in French and German languages. Methods: In our approach, 7 machine learning methods were evaluated to establish a strong baseline. Then, robust models were built, fine-tuned according to the language (French and German), and compared with the expert annotation. Results: The best strategies yield average F1-scores of 90% and 86% respectively for the 2-classes (Progressive/Non-progressive) and the 4-classes (Progressive Disease, Stable Disease, Partial Response, Complete Response) RECIST classification tasks. Conclusions: These results are competitive with the manual labeling as measured by Matthew's correlation coefficient and Cohen's Kappa (79% and 76%). On this basis, we confirm the capacity of specific models to generalize on new unseen data and we assess the impact of using Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) on the accuracy of the classifiers.

Late-Stage Metastatic Melanoma Emerges through a Diversity of Evolutionary Pathways.

Understanding the evolutionary pathways to metastasis and resistance to immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in melanoma is critical for improving outcomes. Here, we present the most comprehensive intrapatient metastatic melanoma dataset assembled to date as part of the Posthumous Evaluation of Advanced Cancer Environment (PEACE) research autopsy program, including 222 exome sequencing, 493 panel-sequenced, 161 RNA sequencing, and 22 single-cell whole-genome sequencing samples from 14 ICI-treated patients. We observed frequent whole-genome doubling and widespread loss of heterozygosity, often involving antigen-presentation machinery. We found KIT extrachromosomal DNA may have contributed to the lack of response to KIT inhibitors of a KIT-driven melanoma. At the lesion-level, MYC amplifications were enriched in ICI nonresponders. Single-cell sequencing revealed polyclonal seeding of metastases originating from clones with different ploidy in one patient. Finally, we observed that brain metastases that diverged early in molecular evolution emerge late in disease. Overall, our study illustrates the diverse evolutionary landscape of advanced melanoma. SIGNIFICANCE: Despite treatment advances, melanoma remains a deadly disease at stage IV. Through research autopsy and dense sampling of metastases combined with extensive multiomic profiling, our study elucidates the many mechanisms that melanomas use to evade treatment and the immune system, whether through mutations, widespread copy-number alterations, or extrachromosomal DNA. See related commentary by Shain, p. 1294. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1275.

Sex and Gender Differences in Anticancer Treatment Toxicity: A Call for Revisiting Drug Dosing in Oncology.

The practice of oncology has dramatically changed in the last decade with the introduction of molecular tumor profiling into routine tumor diagnostics and the extraordinary progress in immunotherapies. However, there remains an unmet need to explore personalized dosing strategies that take into account the patient's sex and gender to optimize the balance between efficacy and toxicity for each individual patient. In this mini-review, we summarize the evidence on sex and gender differences in toxicity of anticancer therapies and present data on dose reduction and dose discontinuation rates for selected chemotherapies and targeted therapies. Finally, we propose the investigation of body composition (specifically fat-free muscle mass) as a viable approach for personalized treatment dosage.

Treatment reality of patients with BRAF-mutant advanced/metastatic melanoma in Switzerland in the era of choice.

Cutaneous melanoma represents a major cause of cancer death in Europe. Without adequate therapy, the 5-year survival rate is 15-20% in distant metastatic disease. Evaluating the status quo of treatment standards in advanced melanoma and rationale for therapy decisions in Switzerland between January 2016 and September 2018. In this retrospective, anonymized registry, data of male and female patients with unresectable advanced/metastatic BRAF-positive cutaneous melanoma treated in first-, second- and third-line with registered substances were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Forty-one patients (56.1% male) were included providing a total of 70 treatment lines (first-line: n = 41; second-line: n = 18; and third-line: n = 11). Within the patients presenting with stage III or IV melanoma, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors was more frequently administered as first-line treatment than targeted therapy (TT) (70.7% vs. 29.3%). Across all lines, patients received TT in 47.1% (predominantly combined BRAF-MEK-inhibition) and immunotherapy in 52.9% of the cases (anti-PD-1 monotherapy in 62.2% and anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combinations in 37.8%). Most commonly, the treatment type was switched from TT to immunotherapy or vice versa upon disease progression. The most frequent rationales for prescribing either TT or immunotherapy were physician's preference (40.0%) or remission pressure (28.6%), respectively. Disease progression led to treatment discontinuation more frequently than undesired events. Patients in Switzerland with unresectable advanced or metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma predominantly receive guideline-recommended treatments. IO was used as predominant front-line therapy, with TT/immunotherapy switch being the predominant treatment principle. Sequencing studies are underway to identify the optimal treatment regimen for those patients. 32: 366-372 Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Safety and Efficacy of Ipilimumab plus Nivolumab and Sequential Selective Internal Radiation Therapy in Hepatic and Extrahepatic Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

To assess the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab plus nivolumab around selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). We present a retrospective, single center study of 32 patients with mUM divided into two groups based on the treatment received between April 2013 and April 2021. The SIRT_IpiNivo cohort was treated with Yttrium-90 microspheres and ipilimumab plus nivolumab before or after the SIRT (n = 18). The SIRT cohort underwent SIRT but did not receive combined immunotherapy with ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 14). Twelve patients (66.7%) of the SIRT_IpiNivo arm received SIRT as first-line treatment and six patients (33.3%) received ipilimumab plus nivolumab prior to SIRT. In the SIRT group, seven patients (50.0%) received single-agent immunotherapy. One patient treated with combined immunotherapy 68 months after the SIRT was included in this group. At the start of ipilimumab plus nivolumab, 94.4% (n = 17) presented hepatic metastases and 72.2% (n = 13) had extra liver disease. Eight patients (44.4%) of the SIRT_IpiNivo group experienced grade 3 or 4 immune related adverse events, mainly colitis and hepatitis. Median overall survival from the diagnosis of metastases was 49.6 months (95% confidence interval (CI); 24.1-not available (NA)) in the SIRT_IpiNivo group compared with 13.6 months (95% CI; 11.5-NA) in the SIRT group (log-rank p-value 0.027). The presence of extra liver metastases at the time of SIRT, largest liver lesion more than 8 cm (M1c) and liver tumor volume negatively impacted the survival. This real-world cohort suggests that a sequential treatment of ipilimumab plus nivolumab and SIRT is a well-tolerated therapeutic approach with promising survival rates.

Estimated Costs of the Ipilimumab-Nivolumab Therapy and Related Adverse Events in Metastatic Melanoma.

Combined ipilimumab and nivolumab significantly improve outcomes in metastatic melanoma patients but bear an important financial impact on the healthcare system. Here, we analyze the treatment costs, focusing on irAE. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 62 melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab-nivolumab at the Lausanne University Hospital between 1 June 2016 and 31 August 2019. The frequency of irAEs and outcomes were evaluated. All melanoma-specific costs were analyzed from the first ipilimumab-nivolumab dose until the therapy given subsequently or death. A total of 54/62 (87%) patients presented at least one irAE, and 31/62 (50%) presented a grade 3-4 irAE. The majority of patients who had a complete response 12/14 (86%) and 21/28 (75%) of overall responders presented a grade 3-4 toxicity, and there were no responses in patients without toxicity. Toxicity costs represented only 3% of the total expenses per patient. The most significant contributions were medication costs (44%) and disease costs (39%), mainly disease-related hospitalization costs, not toxicity-related. Patients with a complete response had the lowest global median cost per week of follow up (EUR 2425) and patients who had progressive disease (PD), the highest one (EUR 8325). Except for one patient who had a Grade 5 toxicity (EUR 6043/week), we observe that less severe toxicity grades (EUR 9383/week for Grade 1), or even the absence of toxicity (EUR 9922/week), are associated with higher median costs per week (vs. EUR 3266/week for Grade 4 and EUR 2850/week for Grade 3). The cost of toxicities was unexpectedly low compared to the total costs, especially medication costs. Patients with higher toxicity grades had better outcomes and lower total costs due to treatment discontinuation.

Efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy or in combination with ipilimumab after BRAF/MEK inhibitors in patients with BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with V600BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma have higher rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with first-line anti-PD1 (PD1]+anti-CTLA-4 (IPI) versus PD1. Whether this is also true after BRAF/MEKi therapy is unknown. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of PD1 versus IPI +PD1 after BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi). METHODS: Patients with V600BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma treated with BRAF/MEKi who had subsequent PD1 versus IPI+PD1 at eight centers were included. The endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), PFS, OS and safety in each group. RESULTS: Of 200 patients with V600E (75%) or non-V600E (25%) mutant metastatic melanoma treated with BRAF/MEKi (median time of treatment 7.6 months; treatment cessation due to progressive disease in 77%), 115 (57.5%) had subsequent PD1 and 85 (42.5%) had IPI+PD1. Differences in patient characteristics between PD1 and IPI+PD1 groups included, age (med. 63 vs 54 years), time between BRAF/MEKi and PD1±IPI (16 vs 4 days), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) of ≥1 (62% vs 44%), AJCC M1C/M1D stage (72% vs 94%) and progressing brain metastases at the start of PD1±IPI (34% vs 57%). Median follow-up from PD1±IPI start was 37.8 months (95% CI, 33.9 to 52.9). ORR was 36%; 34% with PD1 vs 39% with IPI+PD1 (p=0.5713). Median PFS was 3.4 months; 3.4 with PD1 vs 3.6 months with IPI+PD1 (p=0.6951). Median OS was 15.4 months; 14.4 for PD1 vs 20.5 months with IPI+PD1 (p=0.2603). The rate of grade 3 or 4 toxicities was higher with IPI+PD1 (31%) vs PD1 (7%). ORR, PFS and OS were numerically higher with IPI+PD1 vs PD1 across most subgroups except for females, those with <10 days between BRAF/MEKi and PD1±IPI, and those with stage III/M1A/M1B melanoma. The combination of ECOG PS=0 and absence of liver metastases identified patients with >3 years OS (area under the curve, AUC=0.74), while ECOG PS ≥1, progressing brain metastases and presence of bone metastases predicted primary progression (AUC=0.67). CONCLUSIONS: IPI+PD1 and PD1 after BRAF/MEKi have similar outcomes despite worse baseline prognostic features in the IPI+PD1 group, however, IPI+PD1 is more toxic. A combination of clinical factors can identify long-term survivors, but less accurately those with primary resistance to immunotherapy after targeted therapy.

A differential process mining analysis of COVID-19 management for cancer patients.

During the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals faced a challenge to manage patients, especially those with other comorbidities and medical needs, such as cancer patients. Here, we use Process Mining to analyze real-world therapeutic pathways in a cohort of 1182 cancer patients of the Lausanne University Hospital following COVID-19 infection. The algorithm builds trees representing sequences of coarse-grained events such as Home, Hospitalization, Intensive Care and Death. The same trees can also show probability of death or time-to-event statistics in each node. We introduce a new tool, called Differential Process Mining, which enables comparison of two patient strata in each node of the tree, in terms of hits and death rate, together with a statistical significance test. We thus compare management of COVID-19 patients with an active cancer in the first vs. second COVID-19 waves to quantify hospital adaptation to the pandemic. We also compare patients having undergone systemic therapy within 1 year to the rest of the cohort to understand the impact of an active cancer and/or its treatment on COVID-19 outcome. This study demonstrates the value of Process Mining to analyze complex event-based real-world data and generate hypotheses on hospital resource management or on clinical patient care.

Real-life data for first-line combination immune-checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy in patients with melanoma brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma brain metastases (MBM) have a poor prognosis. Systemic treatments that have improved outcomes in advanced melanoma have been shown to have an intracranial (IC) effect. We studied the efficacy and outcomes of combined immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab/nivolumab (Combi-ICI) or targeted therapy (Combi-TT) as first-line treatment in MBM. METHODS: MBM patients treated with Combi-ICI or Combi-TT within 3 months after MBM diagnosis. Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 53 patients received Combi-ICI, 32% had symptomatic MBM and 33.9% elevated LDH. 71.7% required local treatment. The disease control rate was 60.3%. IC response rate (RR) was 43.8% at 3-months with durable responses at 6- (46.5%) and 12-months (53.1%). Extracranial (EC) RR was 44.7% at 3-months and 50% at 12-months. Median PFS was 9.6 months (95% CI 3.6-NR) and median overall survival (mOS) 44.8 months (95% CI; 26.2-NR). 63 patients received Combi-TT, 55.6% of patients had symptomatic MBM, 57.2% of patients had elevated LDH and 68.3% of patients required local treatment. The disease control rate was 60.4%. ICRR was 50% at 3-months, but dropped at 6-months (20.9%). ECRR was 69.2% at 3-months and 17.6% at 12-months. Median PFS was 5.8 months (95% CI 4.2-7.6) and mOS 14.2 months (95% CI 8.99-26.8). In BRAFV600 patients, 26.7% of patients received Combi-ICI and 73.3% Combi-TT with OS (p = 0.0053) and mPFS (p = 0.03) in favour to Combi-ICI. CONCLUSION: Combi-ICI showed prolonged mOS with sustainable IC and EC responses. Despite the initially increased efficacy, Combi-TT responses at 12 months were low. Combi-ICI appeared superior to Combi-TT for OS and PFS in BRAFV600 patients. Other clinical factors are determinants for first-line treatment choice.

Sustainable responses in metastatic melanoma patients with and without brain metastases after elective discontinuation of anti-PD1-based immunotherapy due to complete response.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD1-based immunotherapy is currently used in most patients with advanced melanoma. Despite the remarkable data regarding overall survival, the optimal treatment duration is still unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the outcome of 125 patients with advanced melanoma with and without brain metastases (MBM), treated either with anti-PD1 monotherapy (N = 97) or combined with anti-CTLA4 (N = 28) after elective treatment discontinuation due to complete response (CR) (group A, N = 86), or treatment-limiting toxicity (N = 33) and investigator's decision (ID, N = 6) (group B) with subsequent CR. RESULTS: For group A, median duration of treatment (mDoT) was 22 months (range 5-49) and median time to CR 9 months (range 2-47). Accordingly, mDoT for group B was 3 months (range 0-36) and median time to CR 7 months (range 1-32). Seven patients from group A and three from group B experienced disease recurrence. Off-treatment survival was not reached. Median off-treatment response time (mOTRt) was 19 months (range 0-42) and 25 months (range 0-66), respectively. For MBM, mOTRt was 17 months (range 7-41) and 28 months (range 9-39), respectively. After a median follow-up of 38 months (range 9-70), seven (5.6%) patients had deceased, one (0.8%) due to melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment discontinuation is feasible also in patients with MBM. Efficacy outcomes seemed to be similar in both groups of patients who achieved CR, regardless of reason for discontinuation. In patients who experienced disease relapse, treatment re-challenge with anti-PD1 resulted in subsequent renewed response.

Re-induction ipilimumab following acquired resistance to combination ipilimumab and anti-PD-1 therapy.

PURPOSE: Combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab has a high initial response rate in advanced melanoma; however, up to 55% of patients later progress. The efficacy and safety of ipilimumab re-induction in the setting of acquired resistance (AR) to combination immunotherapy is unknown. METHODS: Patients with advanced melanoma who initially achieved a complete response, partial response or sustained stable disease to induction combination immunotherapy then progressed and were reinduced with ipilimumab (alone or in combination with anti-PD-1) and were analysed retrospectively. Demographics, disease characteristics, efficacy and toxicity were examined. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were identified from 12 centres. The response rate to reinduction therapy was 12/47 (26%), and disease control rate was 21/47 (45%). Responses appeared more frequent in patients who developed AR after ceasing induction immunotherapy (30% vs. 18%, P = 0.655). Time to AR was 11 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8-15 months). After a median follow-up of 16 months (95% CI, 10-25 months), responders to reinduction had a median progression-free survival of 14 months (95% CI, 13, NR months), and in the whole cohort, the median overall survival from reinduction was 17 months (95% CI, 12-NR months). Twenty-seven (58%) immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were reported; 18 (38%) were grade 3/4, and in 11 of 27 (40%), the same irAE observed during induction therapy recurred. CONCLUSIONS: Reinduction with ipilimumab ± anti-PD-1 has modest clinical activity. Clinicians should be attentive to the risk of irAEs, including recurrence of irAEs that occurred during induction therapy. Future studies are necessary to determine best management after resistance to combination immunotherapy.