Real-World nivolumab dosing patterns and safety outcomes in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) is approved for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. However, real-world data on this regimen are limited in this setting. METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized data from the US Oncology Network iKnowMed electronic health record database and patient medical charts. Eligible patients were diagnosed with melanoma and received adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy from March to August 2018. Patients were grouped by dosing regimen: cohort 1 (C1), de novo nivolumab 480 mg Q4W; cohort 2 (C2), switched to nivolumab 480 mg Q4W after nivolumab 240 mg or 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); cohort 3 (C3), de novo nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W; or cohort 4 (C4), de novo nivolumab 240 mg Q2W. Patients were followed for up to 12 months. Duration of therapy and safety/tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one patients were included (C1, n = 40; C2, n = 74; C3, n = 22; C4, n = 55). Duration of therapy was relatively consistent across cohorts (median, 10.3 months; range, 8.3-10.7). Likewise, proportions of patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were similar (range, 54.5%-60.1%), as were the most common events (fatigue, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, nausea, and pruritus). However, proportions experiencing 'significant' TRAEs varied between cohorts. Proportions discontinuing treatment were relatively consistent across cohorts. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses generally supported the unadjusted findings. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world safety profiles of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W and 480 mg Q4W were similar, and both were comparable to the well-documented safety of weight-based dosing (3 mg/kg Q2W), further supporting their approval and use in the adjuvant setting for melanoma.

Cost-Utility of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Melanoma in the United States: An Analysis Using Long-Term Overall Survival Data from Checkmate 067.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus other first-line therapies for advanced melanoma in the United States (US) from the third-party payer perspective. METHODS: This analysis estimated total expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs for first-line treatments of advanced melanoma during a 30-year time horizon using indirect treatment comparisons based on time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and a three-state partitioned survival model. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival reference curves were extrapolated based on 5-year follow-up from the phase III Checkmate 067 trial (NCT01844505). Comparators of NIVO + IPI were NIVO, IPI, pembrolizumab, dabrafenib plus trametinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Drug acquisition costs, treatment administration costs, follow-up time, subsequent therapy data, and adverse event frequencies were obtained from published sources. Utility weights were estimated from Checkmate 067, which compared NIVO + IPI or NIVO monotherapy with IPI monotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced melanoma. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity scenarios for BRAF-mutant subgroups were conducted. RESULTS: NIVO + IPI was estimated to generate the longest OS and the highest total costs versus all comparators, accruing 6.99 LYs, 5.70 QALYs, and $469,469 over the 30-year time horizon. The incremental cost utility of NIVO + IPI versus comparators ranged from $2130 per QALY (versus ENCO + BINI) to $76,169 per QALY (versus NIVO). In all base-case and most sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratios for NIVO + IPI were below $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective treatment versus other therapies in the US, with base-case incremental cost-utility ratios below $100,000 per QALY.

Heterogeneity in Survival with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Its Implications for Survival Extrapolations: A Case Study in Advanced Melanoma.

Background: Survival heterogeneity and limited trial follow-up present challenges for estimating lifetime benefits of oncology therapies. This study used CheckMate 067 (NCT01844505) extended follow-up data to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric and flexible models in estimating the long-term overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (an immune checkpoint inhibitor combination) in advanced melanoma. Methods: Six sets of survival models (standard parametric, piecewise, cubic spline, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models) were independently fitted to overall survival data for treatments in CheckMate 067 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab) using successive data cuts (28, 40, 52, and 60 mo). Standard parametric models allow survival extrapolation in the absence of a complex hazard. Piecewise and cubic spline models allow additional flexibility in fitting the hazard function. Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provide flexibility by explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity. Sixty-month follow-up data, external ipilimumab data, and clinical expert opinion were used to evaluate model estimation accuracy. Lifetime survival projections were compared using a 5% discount rate. Results: Standard parametric, piecewise, and cubic spline models underestimated overall survival at 60 mo for the 28-mo data cut. Compared with other models, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate long-term overall survival estimates versus external data, higher mean survival benefit over 20 y for the 28-mo data cut, and more consistent 20-y mean overall survival estimates across data cuts. Conclusion: This case study demonstrates that survival models explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity showed greater accuracy for early data cuts than standard parametric models did, consistent with similar immune checkpoint inhibitor survival validation studies in advanced melanoma. Research is required to assess generalizability to other tumors and disease stages. Highlights: Given that short clinical trial follow-up periods and survival heterogeneity introduce uncertainty in the health technology assessment of oncology therapies, this study evaluated the suitability of conventional parametric survival modeling approaches as compared with more flexible models in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitors that have the potential to provide lasting survival benefits.This study used extended follow-up data from the phase III CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505) to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric models in comparison with more flexible methods for estimating the long-term survival benefit of the immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate estimates of long-term overall survival versus external data than other models tested.In this case study with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in advanced melanoma, extrapolation models that explicitly incorporate differences in cancer survival between observed or latent subgroups showed greater accuracy with both early and later data cuts than other approaches did.

Indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (an anti-programmed death-1 antibody) is an adjuvant standard of care for patients with high-risk resected melanoma, although a watch-and-wait strategy remains an option. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo, the proxy for a watch-and-wait strategy, was conducted in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. METHODS: An ITC using the Bucher method compared nivolumab with placebo using intention-to-treat population data from the phase III CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs ipilimumab; minimum follow-up, 4 years; NCT02388906) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 (ipilimumab vs placebo; minimum follow-up, ≈4.5 years; NCT00636168) trials. The end-points were recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). To account for cross-trial differences in staging and subsequent therapy, additional analyses examined patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and adjusted post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071, respectively. RESULTS: Nivolumab versus placebo was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.68) and OS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.89). Nivolumab versus placebo was also associated with clinically meaningful improvements in RFS (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40-0.69), DMFS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97) in patients with stage IIIB/IIIC disease and in OS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92) in the overall population after adjusting post-recurrence survival in EORTC 18071. CONCLUSION: This ITC shows that adjuvant nivolumab provides clinically meaningful improvements in RFS, DMFS and OS versus a watch-and-wait strategy in high-risk resected melanoma.

Long-term real-world experience with ipilimumab and non-ipilimumab therapies in advanced melanoma: the IMAGE study.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies. METHODS: IMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti-programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab-treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab-treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: With long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913.

Comparative efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab versus other treatments in adults with resected melanoma: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary. RESULTS: Of 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27-0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14-0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk-benefit profile.

Evaluating the potential of relapse-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in the adjuvant therapy of melanoma with checkpoint inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Recent changes in the adjuvant treatment of melanoma have raised interest in confirming relapse-free survival (RFS) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS). METHODS: We explore this issue with the meta-analytic framework, using individual patient data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 trial of ipilimumab and published results from other adjuvant trials. RESULTS: The individual patient data analysis results at a median follow-up of 5.3 years showed a strong association between RFS and OS at the patient level (ρ = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-0.87) and a moderate association at the trial level (R2 = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.08-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The trial-level association previously observed in interferon-based trials appeared to be maintained when the EORTC 18071 results were added to a regression analysis using published results from other trials. More data from adjuvant trials are required to confirm the strength of association between RFS and OS in this setting.

Indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab versus placebo for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Until recently, adjuvant treatment options for stage III and IV resectable melanoma have been limited. Patients were often managed through routine surveillance. The phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT) CheckMate 238 (238) demonstrated the safety and efficacy of nivolumab as an adjuvant treatment for melanoma in patients with stage IIIB/C or IV disease (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC], 7th edition) versus ipilimumab. The study objective was to estimate the relative efficacy, safety and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between nivolumab and routine surveillance. METHODS: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) of nivolumab versus placebo were constructed using data from 238 and EORTC 18071. EORTC 18071 is a phase III RCT comparing ipilimumab with placebo in patients with resected stage IIIA-IIIC melanoma (AJCC, 6th edition). ITCs were performed using the Bucher comparison method and patient-level data for efficacy, safety and HRQoL. RESULTS: For the efficacy outcomes, nivolumab performed significantly better than placebo for recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.53 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.41, 0.68]) and distant metastases-free survival (HR: 0.59 [95% CI: 0.44, 0.78]). Safety ITCs indicated that patients receiving nivolumab had a greater hazard of experiencing an adverse event (AE) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation, whereas there was a non-significant increased hazard of experiencing a serious AE. HRQoL ITCs showed comparable time to deterioration in 14 of the 15 QLQ-C30 domains; only the dyspnoea domain significantly favoured placebo. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab was associated with significantly improved efficacy outcomes versus placebo, whereas maintaining patient's overall HRQoL. Across the different analysis and populations, there was a high level of consistency in the effect size.

Modelling Survival of Patients Treated with Adjuvant Nivolumab Who Have Melanoma with Lymph Node Involvement or Metastatic Disease After Complete Resection.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab demonstrated significant recurrence-free survival (RFS) gains versus ipilimumab in the CheckMate-238 trial, whereas the CA184-029 trial showed superior RFS gains for ipilimumab versus placebo. No head-to-head trial data were available to compare the efficacy of nivolumab to that of observation, so indirect treatment comparisons were required. Additionally, overall survival (OS) data were not available from CheckMate-238, and the clinical pathway for melanoma has changed significantly over the last decade. Four modelling options were developed using different methods and evidence sources to estimate OS and the impact of nivolumab on predicted life-years in the adjuvant setting; however, this article focuses on two primary methods. METHODS: RFS for nivolumab and observation were informed by a patient-level data meta-regression. The first model was a partitioned survival model, where the parametric OS curve for observation was derived from CA184-029 and nivolumab OS was based on a surrogacy relationship between RFS and OS specific to adjuvant melanoma. The other option used a state-transition model to estimate post-recurrence survival using different data sources. RESULTS: The modelling options estimated different OS for both nivolumab and observation but demonstrated at least a 32% increase in life-years gained for nivolumab versus observation. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrated the difficulties in modelling within the adjuvant setting. Each model produced different survival projections, showing the need to explore different techniques to address the extent of uncertainty. This also highlighted the importance of understanding the impact of RFS in the long term in a setting where the aim of treatment is to remain disease free.

Healthcare cost comparison analysis of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab versus nivolumab monotherapy and ipilimumab monotherapy in advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO + IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage. METHODS: Patient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period. RESULTS: The total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO + IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for > 85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO + IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO + IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO + IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies).

Relapse-Free Survival as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in the Evaluation of Stage II-III Melanoma Adjuvant Therapy.

Background: We assessed whether relapse-free survival (RFS; time until recurrence/death) is a valid surrogate for overall survival (OS) among resected stage II-III melanoma patients through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) on RFS and OS were collected from 5826 patients enrolled in 11 randomized adjuvant trials comparing interferon (IFN) to observation. In addition, IPD from two studies comparing IFN and vaccination in 989 patients were included. A two-level modeling approach was used for assessing Spearman's patient-level correlation (rho) of RFS and OS and the trial-level coefficient of determination (R²) of the treatment effects on RFS and on OS. The results were validated externally in 13 adjuvant studies without available IPD. We then tested the results on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 double-blind trial comparing ipilimumab 10 mg/kg with placebo, which showed a statistically significant impact of the checkpoint inhibitor on RFS and OS. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: With a median follow-up of seven years, 12 of 13 trials showed a consistency between the IFN vs No IFN differences regarding RFS (hazard ratio [HR]RFS = 0.88) and OS (HROS = 0.91), but the small trial, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 2696, was an outlier (HRRFS = 0.72 vs HROS = 1.11). Therefore, even if rho was high, R² was low and could not reliably be estimated. Based on the 12 trials, rho remained high (0.89), and the hazard ratios for RFS and OS were strongly correlated (R² = 0.91). The surrogate threshold effect for RFS was estimated to be 0.77. For the EORTC 18071 trial, the hazard ratio for RFS was 0.75, predicting an effect of ipilimumab on OS. This was subsequently confirmed (HROS = 0.72, 95.1% confidence interval = 0.58 to 0.88, P = .001). Conclusions: In high-risk stage II-III melanoma, RFS appeared to be a valid surrogate end point for OS for adjuvant randomized studies assessing interferon or a checkpoint inhibitor. In future similar adjuvant studies, a hazard ratio for RFS of 0.77 or less would predict a treatment impact on OS.

Societal preferences for adjuvant melanoma health states: UK and Australia.

BACKGROUND: No studies have measured preference-based utility weights for specific toxicities and outcomes associated with approved and investigational adjuvant treatments for patients with resected high-risk melanoma. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the United Kingdom and Australia to obtain utilities for 14 adjuvant melanoma health states. One-on-one interviews were conducted using standard gamble; utility weights range from 0.0, dead, to 1.0, full health. Supplemental risk questions also were asked. RESULTS: Among 155 participants (52% male; mean age, 46 years) "adjuvant treatment no toxicities" (0.89) was most preferred, followed by "induction treatment" (0.88), and "no treatment" (0.86). Participants least preferred "cancer recurrence" (0.62); the utility for "cancer recurrence and 10-year survival with treatment" was 0.70. Disutilities for grade 2 toxicities ranged from -0.06 for fatigue to -0.13 for hypophysitis. The mean maximum acceptable risk of a life-threatening event ranged from 30% for a 6% increase in the chance of remaining cancer free over 3 years to 40% for an 18% increase; Australian respondents were willing to take higher risks. CONCLUSION: Reproducible health utilities for adjuvant melanoma health states were obtained from the general population in two countries. These utilities can be incorporated into treatment-specific cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Health-related quality of life results from the phase III CheckMate 067 study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody of immune checkpoint programmed death 1 on T cells (PD-1), combined with ipilimumab, an immune checkpoint cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor, as combination therapy on the one hand and nivolumab as monotherapy on the other, have both demonstrated improved efficacy compared with ipilimumab alone in the CheckMate 067 study. However, the combination resulted in a higher frequency of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), which could result in diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here we report analyses of HRQoL for patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trial CheckMate 067. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQoL was assessed at weeks 1 and 5 per 6-week cycle for the first 6 months, once every 6 weeks thereafter, and at two follow-up visits using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Care Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EuroQoL Five Dimensions Questionnaire. In addition to the randomised population, patient subgroups, including BRAF mutation status, partial or complete response, treatment-related AEs of grade 3/4, and those who discontinued due to any reason and due to an AE, were investigated. RESULTS: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone both maintained HRQoL, and no clinically meaningful deterioration was observed over time compared with ipilimumab. In addition, similar results were observed across patient subgroups, and no clinically meaningful changes in HRQoL were observed during follow-up visits for patients who discontinued due to any cause. CONCLUSION: These results further support the clinical benefit of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. The finding that the difference in grade 3/4 AEs between the arms did not translate into clinically meaningful differences in the reported HRQoL may be relevant in the clinical setting. STUDY NUMBER: NCT01844505.

Health-related quality of life with adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): secondary outcomes of a multinational, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The EORTC 18071 phase 3 trial compared adjuvant ipilimumab with placebo in patients with stage III melanoma. The primary endpoint, recurrence-free survival, was significantly longer in the ipilimumab group than in the placebo group. Investigator-reported toxic effects of ipilimumab consisted mainly of skin, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and hepatic immune-related adverse events. Adjuvant treatment with ipilimumab in this setting was approved in October, 2014, by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the results of the primary outcome of this trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), of this trial. METHODS: EORTC 18071 was a multinational, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) in 19 countries worldwide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by an interactive voice response system, to receive either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geographical region. HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality-of-life instrument at baseline, weeks 4, 7, 10, and 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter up to 2 years, irrespective of disease progression. Results were summarised by timepoint and in a longitudinal manner in the intention-to-treat population. Two summary scores were calculated for each HRQoL scale: the average score reported during induction (ipilimumab or placebo at a dose of 10 mg/kg, administered as one single dose at the start of days 1, 22, 43, and 64-ie, four doses in 3 weeks), and the average score reported after induction. A predefined threshold of a 10 point difference between arms was considered clinically relevant. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the global health scale, with the predefined hypothesis of no clinically relevant differences after induction between groups. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2007-001974-10, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00636168. FINDINGS: Between July 10, 2008, and Aug 1, 2011, 951 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 475 in the ipilimumab group and 476 in the placebo group. Compliance with completing the HRQoL questionnaire was 893 (94%) of 951 patients at baseline, 693 (75%) of 924 at week 24, and 354 (51%) of 697 at week 108. Patient mean global health scores during (77·32 [SD 17·36] vs 72·96 [17·82]; p=0·00011) and after induction (76·48 [17·52] vs 72·32 [18·60]; p=0·00067) were statistically significantly different between groups but were not clinically relevant. Mean global health scores differed most between the groups at week 7 (77 [SD 19] in the placebo group vs 72 [22] in the ipilimumab group) and week 10 (77 [20] vs 70 [23]). Mean HRQoL scores differed by more than 10 points at week 10 between treatment groups for diarrhoea (7·67 [SD 17·05] for placebo vs 18·17 [28·35] for ipilimumab) and insomnia (15·17 [22·53] vs 25·60 [29·19]). INTERPRETATION: Despite increased toxicity, which led to treatment discontinuation for most patients during the induction phase of ipilimumab administration, overall HRQoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, was similar between groups, as no clinically relevant differences (10 points or more) in global health status scores were observed during or after induction. Clinically relevant deterioration for some symptoms was observed at week 10, but after induction, no clinically relevant differences remained. Together with the primary analysis, results from this trial show that treatment with ipilimumab results in longer recurrence-free survival compared with that for treatment with placebo, with little impairment in HRQoL despite grade 3-4 investigator-reported adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

An expanded portfolio of survival metrics for assessing anticancer agents.

OBJECTIVES: With the introduction of more effective anticancer agents that prolong survival, there is a need for new methods to define the clinical value of treatments. The objective of this preliminary qualitative and quantitative analysis was to assess the utility of an expanded portfolio of survival metrics to differentiate the value of anticancer agents. STUDY DESIGN: A literature review was conducted of phase 3 trial data, reported in regulatory submissions within the last 10 years of agents for 6 metastatic cancers (breast cancer, colorectal cancer [CRC], melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], prostate cancer [PC], and renal cell cancer [RCC]). METHODS: A new, simplified cost-value analysis tool was applied using survival outcomes and total drug costs. Metrics included median overall survival (OS), mean OS, 1-year survival rate, and number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid 1 death at 1 year. Survival results were compiled and compared both within and across trials by tumor type. Total drug costs were calculated by multiplying each agent's cost per month (from October/November 2013, based on the database Price Rx/Medi-Span) by duration of therapy. RESULTS: Relative clinical value for each agent was not consistent across survival outcomes. In 3 tumor types, both the highest improvement in median OS and the highest improvement in mean OS occurred with the same anticancer agent (ipilimumab with melanoma, pemetrexed with NSCLC, and sunitinib with RCC); the highest improvement in the 1-year survival rate and the lowest NNT occurred together with the same anticancer agent in 5 tumor types (bevacizumab with CRC, ipilimumab with melanoma, erlotinib with NSCLC, abiraterone with PC, and temsirolimus with RCC). In the cost-value analysis, agents were inconsistent and achieved a high relative value with some survival outcomes, but not others. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that any 1 metric may not completely characterize the expected survival benefit of all patients. The cost-value analysis tool may be applied to trial data and may be useful in helping to make treatment decisions, regardless of the agent's effectiveness. A combined metric will be needed, as well as further research that includes more mature data, other tumor types, and emerging treatments.

Real-world treatment practice in patients with advanced melanoma in the era before ipilimumab: results from the IMAGE study.

The therapeutic landscape for advanced melanoma has recently been transformed by several novel agents (immune checkpoint inhibitors and molecular-targeted agents). The prospective, multi-site, observational study IMAGE (ipilimumab: management of advanced melanoma in real practice) included a retrospective cohort to describe real-world treatment prior to approval of the immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab. This retrospective cohort of patients, who started second-line/subsequent treatment (index therapy) for advanced melanoma within 3 years before ipilimumab approval, was selected randomly by chart review. Collected data included treatment history, patient outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization. All patients had ≥1 year of follow-up data. This analysis included 177 patients from Europe (69%) and North America (31%). The most common index therapies (used alone or in combination) were fotemustine (23%), dacarbazine (21%), temozolomide (14%), and platinum-based chemotherapy (14%). Most patients (89%) discontinued index treatment during the study period; the most common reason was disease progression (59%). Among patients with tumor assessment (153/177; 86%), 2% had complete response, 5% had partial response, and 12% had stable disease on last tumor assessment. At 1-year study follow-up, median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-2.9) and median overall survival was 8.8 months (95% CI, 6.5-9.7). During follow-up, 95% of the patients had healthcare visits for advanced melanoma, 74% of whom were hospitalized or admitted to a hospice facility. These results provide insights into patient care with advanced melanoma in the era before ipilimumab and may serve as a benchmark for new agents in future real-world studies.

Retrospective analysis of drug utilization, health care resource use, and costs associated with IFN therapy for adjuvant treatment of malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: This study examines real-world drug utilization patterns, health care resource use, and costs among patients receiving adjuvant treatment with IFN versus patients receiving no treatment ("observation") for malignant melanoma following surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims from Truven Health Analytics (MarketScan(®)) to identify all adjuvant melanoma patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed between June 2007 and June 2011 who had a lymph node dissection (ie, index surgery) and were treated with IFN or subsequently observed. Health care resource use and costs of services were converted to 2012 US dollars and were evaluated and compared using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 1,999 eligible subjects with melanoma surgery claims, 179 (9.0%) were treated with IFN and 1,820 (91.0%) were observed. The median duration (days) and number of doses of IFN therapy were 73 and 36, respectively. Among IFN-treated patients, only 10.6% completed ≥80% of maintenance therapy. The total average cost for patients treated with IFN was US$60,755±$3,972 (n=179); significantly higher than for patients undergoing observation ($31,641±$2,471; P<0.0001). Similar trends were observed when evaluating total cost components, including melanoma-related and non-melanoma-related medical costs. Among the melanoma-related medical costs, outpatient services, including office visits and laboratory testing, represented between 33% and 53% of total costs and demonstrated the largest difference between IFN-treated and observation patients. Outpatient service costs for IFN-treated patients were $32,414±$2,498, over three times greater than those for observation patients ($10,556±$1,128; P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The majority of adjuvant melanoma patients in this study was treated with observation versus IFN treatment. Among those who attempted IFN treatment, most could not complete the recommended course of therapy. Health care costs were significantly greater for patients treated with IFN, with the greatest differences being for melanoma-related medical cost components. These findings illustrate the significant economic burden borne by adjuvant melanoma patients and their health insurers.

Ipilimumab in 2nd line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) compared with best supportive care (BSC) in pre-treated advanced melanoma patients. METHODS: The analysis was based on a US payer perspective and lifetime time horizon. A three-state Markov model was developed representing clinical outcomes, quality-of-life, and healthcare resource use of patients treated with ipilimumab and BSC. Transitions between states were modeled using overall and progression-free survival data from the MDX010-20 trial. Utility data were from a melanoma-specific study of the health state preferences of the general population. Disease management costs expressed in 2011 US Dollars were based on healthcare resource use observed in a US retrospective medical chart study. Uncertainty was analyzed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The gain in life years and QALYs from introducing ipilimumab over BSC were 1.88 years (95% CI = 1.62-2.20) and 1.14 (95% CI = 1.01-1.34) QALYs, respectively, over the lifetime time horizon. The estimated incremental cost of treating with ipilimumab vs BSC was $146,716 (95% CI = $130,992-$164,025). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $78,218 per life year gained and $128,656 per QALY gained. Ipilimumab was 95% likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $146,000/QALY. LIMITATIONS: Ipilimumab's method of action causes a tumor response pattern that differs from the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors upon which the model is based, leading to a potential under-estimate of quality-of-life of ipilimumab patients. Survival and QALY gains were related to the time horizon of the analysis. Sensitivity analyses indicated that qualitative conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab were unchanged when the method of quality adjustment and the time horizon were varied. CONCLUSION: The analysis shows that the estimated cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab is within what has been shown to be acceptable to payers for oncology products in the US.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of overall survival comparing 3 mg/kg ipilimumab with alternative therapies in the management of pretreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients treated with 3 mg/kg ipilimumab versus alternative systemic therapies in pretreated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. From these trials, Kaplan-Meier survival curves for each intervention were digitized and combined by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different drug classes. RESULTS: Of 38 trials identified, 15 formed one interlinked network by drug class to allow for an NMA. Ipilimumab, at a dose of 3 mg/kg, was associated with a greater mean OS time (18.8 months; 95% credible interval [CrI], 15.5-23.0 months) than single-agent chemotherapy (12.3 months; 95% CrI, 6.3-28.0 months), chemotherapy combinations (12.2 months; 95% CrI, 7.1-23.3 months), biochemotherapies (11.9 months; 95% CrI, 7.0-22.0 months), single-agent immunotherapy (11.1 months; 95% CrI, 8.5-16.2 months), and immunotherapy combinations (14.1 months; 95% CrI, 9.0-23.8 months). CONCLUSION: Results of this NMA were in line with previous findings and suggest that OS with ipilimumab is expected to be greater than with alternative systemic therapies, alone or in combination, for the management of pretreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma.

Health related quality of life outcomes for unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab treatment.

BACKGROUND: In an international, randomized Phase III trial ipilimumab demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit in previously treated advanced melanoma patients. This report summarizes health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes for ipilimumab with/without gp100 vaccine compared to gp100 alone during the clinical trial's 12 week treatment induction period. METHODS: The Phase III clinical trial (MDX010-20) was a double-blind, fixed dose study in 676 previously treated advanced unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients. Patients were randomized 3:1:1 to receive either ipilimumab (3 mg/kg q3w x 4 doses) + gp100 (peptide vaccine; 1 mg q3w x 4 doses; ipilimumab plus gp100, n = 403); gp100 vaccine + placebo (gp100 alone, n = 136); or ipilimumab + placebo (ipilimumab alone, n = 137). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) assessed HRQL. Baseline to Week 12 changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 function, global health status, and symptom scores were analyzed for ipilimumab with/without gp100 vaccine compared to gp100 alone. Mean change in scores were categorized "no change" (0-5), "a little" (5-10 points), "moderate" (10-20 points), and "very much" (>20). RESULTS: In the ipilimumab plus gp100 and ipilimumab alone groups, mean changes from baseline to Week 12 generally indicated "no change" or "a little" impairment across EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status, function, and symptom subscales. Significant differences in constipation, favoring ipilimumab, were observed (p < 0.05). For ipilimumab alone arm, subscales with no or a little impairment were physical, emotional, cognitive, social function, global health, nausea, pain, dyspnea, constipation, and diarrhea subscales. For the gp100 alone group, the observed changes were moderate to large for global health, role function, fatigue, and for pain. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab with/without gp100 vaccine does not have a significant negative HRQL impact during the treatment induction phase relative to gp100 alone in stage III or IV melanoma patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identification number NCT00094653.