The Utility of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Elderly Patients with Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is performed less often for older patients with melanoma. We investigated the association of SLNB and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) in the elderly. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER: 2010-2019) for patients ≥ 70 years with cT2-4N0M0 melanoma. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the impact of SLNB performance and SLN status on MSS at increasing age cutoffs. In addition, we evaluated the association of different factors with SLNB performance using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 11,548 patients. Sentinel lymph node biopsy occurred in 6754 (58.5%) patients, 1050 (15.5%) of whom had a positive SLN. On adjusted SEER analysis, a negative SLN was independently associated with improved MSS (overall hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.67) for patients up to 87 years old. Positive SLNB was independently associated with inferior MSS (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.93-1.98). Increasing age groups were significantly associated with decreased SLNB performance. CONCLUSIONS: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is associated with cancer-specific survival and adds prognostic information for elderly patients with melanoma. Sentinel lymph node biopsy performance should not be eliminated in elderly patients based on age alone, unless justified by poor performance status, patient preference, or other surgical contraindications. Decreased SLNB performance with increasing age in our cohort may indicate a missed therapeutic opportunity in the care of elderly patients with melanoma.

First-line Immunotherapy for Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of Real-world Survival Data and Practice Patterns.

OBJECTIVES: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a promising new therapy for advanced Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC). We investigated real-world utilization and survival outcomes of first-line immunotherapies in a contemporary cohort. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we identified 759 patients with MCC between 2015 and 2020 with stage IV disease and known status of first-line systemic therapy. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine predictors of immunotherapy usage. Overall survival (OS) was compared for patients receiving immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or no systemic therapies. RESULTS: We identified 759 patients meeting our inclusion criteria: 329 patients received immunotherapy, 161 received chemotherapy, and 269 received no systemic therapy. Adjusting for demographic, clinical, and facility factors, high facility volume significantly predicted first-line immunotherapy use (OR 1.99; P =0.017). Median OS was 16.2, 12.3, and 8.7 months, among patients who received immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or no systemic therapy, respectively ( P <0.001). On Cox multivariable survival analysis, first-line immunotherapy treatment (HR=0.79, P =0.041) and treatment at high-volume centers (HR=0.58, P =0.004) were associated with improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with clinical trial results, first-line immunotherapy associated with improvement in median overall survival for patients with stage IV MCC, significantly outperforming chemotherapy in this real-world cohort. Treatment at high-volume centers associated with first-line immunotherapy utilization suggesting that familiarity with this rare disease is important to achieving optimal outcomes for metastatic MCC.

Disparities in the Receipt of Systemic Treatment in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, immunotherapy and targeted therapy revolutionized melanoma treatment. However, inequities in their use may limit the benefits seen by certain patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients in the National Cancer Database for patients with stage IV melanoma from 2 time periods: 2004-2010 and 2016-2020, distinguishing between those who received systemic therapy and those who did not. We investigated the rates and factors associated with treatment omission. We employed Kaplan-Meier analysis to explore the impact of treatment on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 19,961 patients met the inclusion criteria: 7621 patients were diagnosed in 2004-2010 and 12,340 patients in 2016-2020, of whom 54.9% and 28.3% did not receive systemic treatment, respectively. The rate of "no treatment" has decreased to a plateau of ∼25% in 2020. Median overall survival was improved with treatment in both time periods (2004-2010: 8.8 vs. 5.6 mo [ P <0.05]; and 2016-2020: 25.9 vs. 4.3 mo [ P <0.05]). Nonmedical factors associated with the omission of treatment in both periods included low socioeconomic status, Medicaid or no health insurance, and treatment at low-volume centers. In the period from 2016 to 2020, patients treated at nonacademic programs were also less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapies significantly improve survival for patients with metastatic melanoma, but significant disparities exist with their receipt. Local efforts are needed to ensure all patients benefit from these revolutionary treatments.

Disparities in Receipt of Adjuvant Immunotherapy among Stage III Melanoma Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Melanoma survival has greatly improved with the advent of immunotherapy, but unequal access to these medications may exist due to nonmedical patient factors such as insurance status, educational background, and geographic proximity to treatment. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to assess patients with nonmetastatic cutaneous melanoma who underwent surgical resection and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with tumor involvement from 2015 to 2020. We evaluated rates of adjuvant immunotherapy among this patient population based on patient, tumor, and facility variables, including insurance status, socioeconomic status, pathologic stage (IIIA-IIID), and treatment facility type and volume. RESULTS: Adjuvant immunotherapy was associated with improved survival for stage III melanoma, with a slight increase in 5-year OS for stage IIIA (87.9% vs. 85.9%, P=0.044) and a higher increase in stages IIIB-D disease (70.3% vs. 59.6%, P<0.001). Receipt of adjuvant immunotherapy was less likely for patients who were older, low socioeconomic status, or uninsured. Low-volume and community cancer centers had higher rates of adjuvant immunotherapy overall for all stage III patients, whereas high-volume and academic centers used adjuvant immunotherapy much less often for stage IIIA patients compared with those in stages IIIB-D. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate inconsistent use of adjuvant immunotherapy among patients with stage III melanoma despite a significant association with improved survival. Notably, there was a lower use of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients of lower SES and those treated at high-volume centers. Equity in access to novel standards of care represents an opportunity to improve outcomes for patients with melanoma.

IDH1 inhibition potentiates chemotherapy efficacy in pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with a five-year overall survival rate of just 13%, and development of chemotherapy resistance is nearly universal. PDAC cells overexpress wild-type IDH1 that can enable them to overcome metabolic stress, suggesting it could represent a therapeutic target in PDAC. Here, we found that anti-IDH1 therapy enhanced the efficacy of conventional chemotherapeutics. Chemotherapy treatment induced ROS and increased TCA cycle activity in PDAC cells, along with the induction of wild-type IDH1 expression as a key resistance factor. IDH1 facilitated PDAC survival following chemotherapy treatment by supporting mitochondrial function and antioxidant defense to neutralize reactive oxygen species through the generation of alpha-ketoglutarate and NADPH, respectively. Pharmacologic inhibition of wild-type IDH1 with ivosidenib synergized with conventional chemotherapeutics in vitro and potentiated the efficacy of sub-therapeutic doses of these drugs in vivo in murine PDAC models. This promising treatment approach is translatable through available and safe oral inhibitors and provides the basis of an open and accruing clinical trial testing this combination (NCT05209074).

Therapeutic implications of the metabolic changes associated with BRAF inhibition in melanoma.

Melanoma metabolism can be reprogrammed by activating BRAF mutations. These mutations are present in up to 50% of cutaneous melanomas, with the most common being V600E. BRAF mutations augment glycolysis to promote macromolecular synthesis and proliferation. Prior to the development of targeted anti-BRAF therapies, these mutations were associated with accelerated clinical disease in the metastatic setting. Combination BRAF and MEK inhibition is a first line treatment option for locally advanced or metastatic melanoma harboring targetable BRAF mutations. This therapy shows excellent response rates but these responses are not durable, with almost all patients developing resistance. When BRAF mutated melanoma cells are inhibited with targeted therapies the metabolism of those cells also changes. These cells rely less on glycolysis for energy production, and instead shift to a mitochondrial phenotype with upregulated TCA cycle activity and oxidative phosphorylation. An increased dependence on glutamine utilization is exhibited to support TCA cycle substrates in this metabolic rewiring of BRAF mutated melanoma. Herein we describe the relevant core metabolic pathways modulated by BRAF inhibition. These adaptive pathways represent vulnerabilities that could be targeted to overcome resistance to BRAF inhibitors. This review evaluates current and future therapeutic strategies that target metabolic reprogramming in melanoma cells, particularly in response to BRAF inhibition.

An Age-Stratified Analysis of Early Postoperative Mortality Among Medicare-Eligible Patients With Common Gastrointestinal and Hepato-pancreato-biliary Malignancies.

Background: The frequency of major cancer surgery in the elderly (≥80 years) has increased concomitantly with the rise in average age of the population. We assessed early postoperative mortality following hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and gastrointestinal (GI) procedures for common malignancies stratified by age. Methods: The National Cancer Database (2004-2017) was queried for patients who underwent resection for GI (gastroesophageal and colorectal) or HPB (pancreatic adenocarcinoma, biliary tract, and primary liver) cancers. We compared early postoperative mortality (30 d and 90 d) stratified by age (65-79 vs ≥80 years) and procedure, and compared survival outcomes by age and operative vs nonoperative management. Results: A total of 709,358 patients were included. The 30-day mortality ranged from 1.8% to 5.8% among patients 65-79 years and from 3.2% to 12.4% among patients ≥80 years depending on procedure. The 90-day mortality ranged from 3.6% to 10.6% in patients 65-79 years compared to 8.4%-21.0% among patients ≥80 years. The overall 90-day mortality was 5.2% for patients 65-79 years and 12.0% for patients ≥80 years (P < .001). Age ≥80 was associated with worse survival among operatively managed patients with each upper GI, HPB, and lower GI malignancy relative to younger patients on multivariable analysis. However, operative management of patients ≥80 years was associated with improved survival relative to nonoperative management. Discussion: Elderly patients suffer higher postoperative mortality after major GI and HPB cancer surgery, but operative management is associated with improved survival among patients ≥80 years as compared to nonoperative management. These data are important to contextualize when counseling elderly patients on their treatment options for localized GI and HPB cancers.

Neoadjuvant Dual Checkpoint Inhibitors vs Anti-PD1 Therapy in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM. Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered. Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Disparities in treatment and survival for patients with isolated colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection improves survival for patients with isolated colorectal liver metastasis. National studies on the disparities related to this topic are limited; therefore, we investigated factors that affect surgical treatment and survival. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database (2010-2017) for patients with isolated synchronous colorectal liver metastasis. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to identify factors associated with surgical resection, treatment at high-volume facilities, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 34,050 patients with isolated colorectal liver metastasis, surgical resection (n = 7,810; 23.0%) was more likely among patients who were of high socioeconomic status (odds ratio = 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.31), traveled long distance for treatment (odds ratio = 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.66), and were treated at high-volume facilities (odds ratio = 4.86; 95% confidence interval, 14.45-5.30). Black patients were less likely to undergo resection (odds ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.82). Treatment at high-volume facility was more common among patients who were Black (odds ratio = 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.21), were of high socioeconomic status (socioeconomic status index 7: odds ratio = 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.31), and traveled long distance (odds ratio = 4.03; 95% confidence interval, 3.63-4.48) and less likely for nonmetropolitan residents and those of low socioeconomic status (P < .05). Patients of high socioeconomic status and those who traveled long distance, were treated at high-volume facilities, underwent surgical resection, and received perioperative chemotherapy had an associated survival advantage (P < .05 for all), whereas Black race was associated with poorer overall survival (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Nonmedical patient factors, such as race, socioeconomic status, and geography, are associated with treatment and survival for isolated colorectal liver metastases. Disparities persist after adjusting for surgical resection and treatment facility. These barriers must be addressed to improve care for vulnerable cancer patients.