The Danish metastatic melanoma database (DAMMED): A nation-wide platform for quality assurance and research in real-world data on medical therapy in Danish melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials enroll patients with specific diseases based on certain pre-defined eligibility criteria. Disease registries are crucial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new expensive oncology medicines in broad non-trial patient populations. METHODS: We provide detailed information on the structure, including variables, and the scientific results from a nation-wide Danish database covering advanced melanoma, illustrating the importance of continuous real-world data registration. Disease status and treatment-related information on all patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition stage III or IV melanoma candidates to medical treatment in Denmark are prospectively registered in the Danish Metastatic Melanoma Database (DAMMED). RESULTS: By January 1st, 2021, DAMMED includes 4156 patients and 7420 treatment regimens. Response rates and survival data from published randomized clinical trial data are compared with real-world efficacy data from DAMMED and presented. Overall, nine independent manuscripts highlighting similarities and discrepancies between real-world and clinical trial results are already reported to date. CONCLUSION: Nation-wide disease registries take into consideration the complexity of daily clinical practice. We show a concrete example of how disease registries can complement clinical trials' information, improving clinical practice, and support health-related technology assessment.

Real-World Impact of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common intraocular malignancy in adults and shows a high rate of metastatic spread. As randomized clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have not been performed in patients with metastatic UM, we analyzed the real-world outcomes in a nationwide population-based study. Clinical data of patients with UM were extracted from the Danish Metastatic Melanoma database, a nationwide database containing unselected records of patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma in Denmark. Survival before (pre-ICI, n = 32) and after (post-ICI, n = 94) the approval of first-line treatment with ICI was analyzed. A partial response to first-line treatment was observed in 7% of patients treated with anti-programmed cell death protein (PD)-1 monotherapy and in 21% with combined anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen (CTLA)-4 plus anti-PD-1 therapy. Median progression-free survival was 2.5 months for patients treated in the pre-ICI era compared to 3.5 months in the post-ICI era (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.67; p < 0.001). The estimated one-year overall survival rate increased from 25.0% to 41.9% and the median overall survival improved from 7.8 months to 10.0 months, respectively (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.34-0.79; p = 0.003). Thus, the introduction of ICI as first-line treatment appears to have significantly improved the real-world survival of patients with metastatic UM, despite relatively low response rates compared to cutaneous melanoma. With the lack of therapies proven effective in randomized trials, these data support the current treatment with ICI in patients with metastatic UM.

The real-world impact of modern treatments on the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma.

Between 2010 and 2015, pivotal trials with strict enrolment criteria led to the approval of several new treatments for metastatic melanoma (MM). We sought to determine the impact of these treatments in the 'real world'. We took advantage of the Danish MM database (DAMMED), which contains data on the entire, unselected population diagnosed with MM within Denmark. All MM cases (excluding ocular MM, n = 837) diagnosed in three non-consecutive years marked by major changes in the first-line treatments (2012: interleukin-2 and BRAF inhibitors; 2014: anti-CTLA-4: Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4 and 2016: anti-PD-1: programmed cell death protein 1 and MEK inhibitors) were retrieved. Patients were grouped into 'trial-like' and 'trial-excluded' based on the common trial eligibility criteria. In the 'trial-like' population (39% of all MM), the median overall survival (OS) was not reached in 2016 versus 18.8 months in 2014 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.75; p = 0.0005) and 16.5 months in 2012 (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.63; p < 0.0001). In the 'trial-excluded' population (61% of all MM), 75% had brain metastases and/or (performance status) PS ≥ 2. Here, the median OS improved to 6.9 months in 2016 versus 5.2 months in 2014 (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.84; p = 0.0008) and 4.2 months in 2012 (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.84; p = 0.0007). Subgroup analysis of the BRAF wild-type population showed an improved 1-year survival rate in 2016 versus 2014 (35.9% vs 18.8%, p = 0.0153). In conclusion, the introduction of modern treatments has led to an improved survival of real-world patients with MM, regardless of their eligibility to clinical trials and the BRAF status. These data support the application of modern treatments to patient populations which are not represented in pivotal trials.