Surveillance evaluations in patients with stage I, II, III, or resectable IV melanoma who were treated with curative intent: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Appropriate surveillance of patients with melanoma treated with curative intent is vital to improve patient outcomes. A systematic review was conducted to capture locoregional recurrence and metastatic disease, and to evaluate the effectiveness of various surveillance strategies. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Database were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative studies reporting at least one patient-related outcome were included. Exclusion criteria included: published in non-English or recruited >20 % or an uncertain percentage of non-target patients without conducting a subgroup analysis for the target patients. This review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021246482). RESULTS: Among 17,978 publications from the literature search, one RCT and five non-randomized comparative studies were included and comprised 4016 patients. The aggregate evidence certainty was low for the RCT and very low for the comparative studies, as assessed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. For patients with stage IA-IIC melanoma, a reduced follow-up schedule with clinical follow-up strategies alone may be safe and cost-effective. For stage IIC-IIIC patients, at least two serial PET/CT or whole-body CT and brain MRI imaging within a median follow-up of 31.2 months may detect 50 % of recurrences that lead to additional management, such as surgery. PET/CT may have a higher positive predictive value and lower false positive rate compared with CT alone in detecting recurrence in stage I-III patients. CONCLUSION: Surveillance protocols should be based on individual risk of recurrence and established best practices when formulating follow-up strategies, as suggested by the studies reviewed. Future high-quality studies are needed to clarify the frequency of imaging follow-up strategies, especially in patients with high-risk stage II melanoma.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines.

BACKGROUND: Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement. METHOD: Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type. RESULTS: The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation. CONCLUSION: Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective. POLICY SUMMARY: Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Surveillance After a Previous Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnosis: A Scoping Review of Melanoma Follow-Up Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Cutaneous melanoma accounts for more than 70% of all skin cancer deaths. Follow-up surveillance is an integral part of melanoma patient care, to facilitate early detection of recurrences and subsequent primary melanomas. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of recently published melanoma surveillance guidelines from regional and national melanoma working groups. METHODS: A systematic search for relevant studies in MEDLINE and Embase was conducted in September 2022 and was limited to publications from 2010 or later. RESULTS: A total of 1047 articles were retrieved, and after abstract and full text review, 26 articles from 19 different organizations met inclusion criteria. Life-long annual skin surveillance with a physician was recommended by 53% (9/17) of guidelines. Routine laboratory investigations were recommended by 7/19 guidelines. Regional lymph node ultrasound was recommended by 9/16 guidelines, most often in stage IB or higher, and was optional in 7/16 for patients who met specific criteria. Surveillance with PET-CT or CT and MRI was recommended by 15 and 11 guidelines, respectively, most commonly in stage IIC or higher, with a variable frequency and total duration. Five out of 9 guidelines indicated a preference for skin surveillance to be completed with a dermatologist. CONCLUSION: Guidelines were highly variable for many aspects of melanoma surveillance, which may be partly attributed to regional differences in healthcare workforce distribution and availability of imaging technologies. Further high-level studies are recommended to provide more evidence on the most effective clinical and imaging follow-up surveillance protocols.

Seven-Year Follow-Up of the Phase III KEYNOTE-006 Study: Pembrolizumab Versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Immune checkpoint inhibitors have led to unprecedented prolongation of overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced melanoma. Five-year follow-up of KEYNOTE-006 showed pembrolizumab prolonged survival versus ipilimumab. Efficacy results with 7-year follow-up are presented. At data cutoff (April 19, 2021), median follow-up was 85.3 months (range, 0.03-90.8 months). Median OS was 32.7 months for pembrolizumab versus 15.9 months for ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.83); 7-year OS was 37.8% and 25.3%, respectively. OS HRs favored pembrolizumab regardless of BRAF status or prior BRAF/MEK-inhibitor treatment and prognostic characteristics (elevated lactate dehydrogenase, large tumor size, and brain metastasis). Median modified progression-free survival (mPFS) was 9.4 months for pembrolizumab versus 3.8 months for ipilimumab; 7-year mPFS was 23.8% and 13.3%, respectively. In patients who completed ≥94 weeks of pembrolizumab, the 5-year OS was 92.9% and the 5-year mPFS was 70.1%. The objective response rate with second-course pembrolizumab (n = 16) was 56% (95% CI, 30 to 80) and the 2-year mPFS was 62.5%. These findings confirm that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefit in advanced melanoma.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: A real-world population-based cohort study of resource utilization.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy-effectiveness gap between randomized trial and real-world evidence regarding the clinical benefit of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma (MM) has been well characterized by previous literature, consistent with initial concerns raised by health technology assessment agencies (HTAs). As these differences can significantly impact cost-effectiveness, it is critical to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments for MM. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients who received second-line non-ipilimumab therapies between 2008 and 2012 versus ipilimumab treatment between 2012 and 2015 (after public reimbursement) for MM in Ontario. Using a 5-year time horizon, censor-adjusted and discounted (1.5%) costs (from the public payer's perspective in Canadian dollars) and effectiveness were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in life-years gained (LYGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with bootstrapping to capture uncertainty. Varying the discount rate and reducing the price of ipilimumab were done as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In total, 329 MM were identified (Treated: 189; Controls: 140). Ipilimumab was associated with an incremental effectiveness of 0.59 LYG, incremental cost of $91,233, and ICER of $153,778/LYG. ICERs were not sensitive to discounting rate. Adjusting for quality of life using utility weights resulted in an ICER of $225,885/QALY, confirming the original HTA estimate prior to public reimbursement. Reducing the price of ipilimumab by 100% resulted in an ICER of $111,728/QALY. CONCLUSION: Despite its clinical benefit, ipilimumab as second-line monotherapy for MM patients is not cost-effective in the real world as projected by HTA under conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Phase II LEAP-004 Study of Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab for Melanoma With Confirmed Progression on a Programmed Cell Death Protein-1 or Programmed Death Ligand 1 Inhibitor Given as Monotherapy or in Combination.

PURPOSE: Effective treatments are needed for melanoma that progresses on inhibitors of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1). We conducted the phase II LEAP-004 study to evaluate the combination of the multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib and the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in this population (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03776136). METHODS: Eligible patients with unresectable stage III-IV melanoma with confirmed progressive disease (PD) within 12 weeks of the last dose of a PD-1/L1 inhibitor given alone or with other therapies, including cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, received lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus ≤ 35 doses of pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST, version 1.1, by independent central review. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were enrolled and treated. The median study follow-up was 15.3 months. ORR in the total population was 21.4% (95% CI, 13.9 to 30.5), with three (2.9%) complete responses and 19 (18.4%) partial responses. The median duration of response was 8.3 months (range, 3.2-15.9+). ORR was 33.3% in the 30 patients with PD on prior anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 therapy. The median progression-free survival and overall survival in the total population were 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.1) and 14.0 months (95% CI, 10.8 to not reached), respectively. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (45.6%) patients, most commonly hypertension (21.4%); one patient died from a treatment-related event (decreased platelet count). CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab provides clinically meaningful, durable responses in patients with advanced melanoma with confirmed PD on prior PD-1/L1 inhibitor-based therapy, including those with PD on anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 therapy. The safety profile was as expected. These data support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a potential regimen for this population of high unmet need.

Current State of Adjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: Less Is More, or More Is Better?

Advances in melanoma treatments over the past decade have changed the course of survival for patients. Several adjuvant therapies have been approved and are now considered standard of care for high-risk patients. These therapies have shown improvements for recurrence-free survival and distant metastases-free survival, but not overall survival, as the data are maturing. The 5-year recurrence-free survival in the COMBI-AD study, which compared dabrafenib and trametinib with placebo, was 65% and 58%, respectively. In the KEYNOTE-054 study, the recurrence-free survival at 3 years was 63.7% versus 41%. Despite these advances, approximately 50% of patients will succumb to their disease. Adjuvant therapy is considered potentially curative and avoids the morbidity of relapsed disease and the poor outcomes seen in metastatic disease. However, the lack of overall survival benefit in clinical trials of patients with high-risk stage II and stage III disease raises the question of whether it is more efficacious to treat when there is residual microscopic disease, or to wait until the disease recurs to avoid treating those who may have been cured by surgery alone. Immunotherapy also has the potential for substantial toxicity that may be lifelong; hence, discussion of risks and benefits of therapy is warranted because there should be less tolerance for substantial toxicity in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant trials are needed that will integrate biomarkers to allow for better selection of patients who will truly benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Melanomas with concurrent BRAF non-p.V600 and NF1 loss-of-function mutations are targetable by BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy.

Although combination BRAF/MEK inhibition has produced significant survival benefits for BRAF p.V600 mutant melanomas, targeted therapies approved for BRAF non-p.V600 mutant melanomas remain limited. Through the analysis of 772 cutaneous melanoma exomes, we reveal that BRAF non-p.V600 mutations co-occurs more frequently with NF1 loss, but not with oncogenic NRAS mutations, than expected by chance. We present cell signaling data, which demonstrate that BRAF non-p.V600 mutants can signal as monomers and dimers within an NF1 loss context. Concordantly, BRAF inhibitors that inhibit both monomeric and dimeric BRAF synergize with MEK inhibition to significantly reduce cell viability in vitro and tumor growth in vivo in BRAF non-p.V600 mutant melanomas with co-occurring NF1 loss-of-function mutations. Our data suggest that patients harboring BRAF non-p.V600 mutant melanomas may benefit from current FDA-approved BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy currently reserved for BRAF p.V600 mutant patients.

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus IFNα2b or Ipilimumab in Resected High-Risk Melanoma.

We conducted a randomized phase III trial to evaluate whether adjuvant pembrolizumab for one year (647 patients) improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) in comparison with high-dose IFNα-2b for one year or ipilimumab for up to three years (654 patients), the approved standard-of-care adjuvant immunotherapies at the time of enrollment for patients with high-risk resected melanoma. At a median follow-up of 47.5 months, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer RFS than prior standard-of-care adjuvant immunotherapies [HR, 0.77; 99.62% confidence interval (CI), 0.59-0.99; P = 0.002]. There was no statistically significant association with OS among all patients (HR, 0.82; 96.3% CI, 0.61-1.09; P = 0.15). Proportions of treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 to 5 were 19.5% with pembrolizumab, 71.2% with IFNα-2b, and 49.2% with ipilimumab. Therefore, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved RFS but not OS compared with the prior standard-of-care immunotherapies for patients with high-risk resected melanoma. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjuvant PD-1 blockade therapy decreases the rates of recurrence, but not survival, in patients with surgically resectable melanoma, substituting the prior standard-of-care immunotherapies for this cancer. See related commentary by Smithy and Shoushtari, p. 599. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 587.

Management of Pyrexia Associated with the Combination of Dabrafenib and Trametinib: Canadian Consensus Statements.

The combination of dabrafenib and trametinib is a well-established treatment for BRAF-mutated melanoma. However, the effectiveness of this approach may be hindered by the development of treatment-related pyrexia syndrome, which occurs in at least 50% of treated patients. Without appropriate intervention, pyrexia syndrome has the potential to worsen and can result in hypotension secondary to dehydration and associated organ-related complications. Furthermore, premature treatment discontinuation may result in a reduction in progression-free and overall survival. Despite existing guidance, there is still a wide variety of therapeutic approaches suggested in the literature for both the definition and management of dabrafenib and trametinib-related pyrexia. This is reflected in the practice variation of its prevention and treatment within and between Canadian cancer centres. A Canadian working group was formed and consensus statements were constructed based on evidence and finalised through a two-round modified Delphi approach. The statements led to the development of a pyrexia treatment algorithm that can easily be applied in routine practice. The Canadian working group consensus statements serve to provide practical guidance for the management of dabrafenib and trametinib-related pyrexia, hopefully leading to reduced discontinuation rates, and ultimately improve patients' quality of life and cancer-related outcomes.

Defining the Criteria for Reflex Testing for BRAF Mutations in Cutaneous Melanoma Patients.

Targeted therapy has been developed through an in-depth understanding of molecular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of melanoma. Approximately ~50% of patients with melanoma have tumors that harbor a mutation of the BRAF oncogene. Certain clinical features have been identified in BRAF-mutated melanomas (primary lesions located on the trunk, diagnosed in patients <50, visibly pigmented tumors and, at times, with ulceration or specific dermatoscopic features). While BRAF mutation testing is recommended for stage III-IV melanoma, guidelines differ in recommending mutation testing in stage II melanoma patients. To fully benefit from these treatment options and avoid delays in therapy initiation, advanced melanoma patients harboring a BRAF mutation must be identified accurately and quickly. To achieve this, clear definition and implementation of BRAF reflex testing criteria/methods in melanoma should be established so that patients with advanced melanoma can arrive to their first medical oncology appointment with a known biomarker status. Reflex testing has proven effective for a variety of cancers in selecting therapies and driving other medical decisions. We overview the pathophysiology, clinical presentation of BRAF-mutated melanoma, current guidelines, and present recommendations on BRAF mutation testing. We propose that reflex BRAF testing should be performed for every melanoma patient with stages ≥IIB.

Immune adverse events (irAEs) with adjuvant ipilimumab in melanoma, use of immunosuppressants and association with outcome: ECOG-ACRIN E1609 study analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occurring from adjuvant use of immunotherapy and of their management on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes is currently not well understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E1609 enrolled 1673 patients with resected high-risk melanoma and evaluated adjuvant ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and 10 mg/kg (ipi10) versus interferon-α. We investigated the association of irAEs and of use of immunosuppressants with RFS and OS for patients treated with ipilimumab (n=1034). RESULTS: Occurrence of grades 1-2 irAEs was associated with RFS (5 years: 52% (95% CI 47% to 56%) vs 41% (95% CI 31% to 50%) with no AE; p=0.006) and a trend toward improved OS (5 years: 75% (95% CI 71% to 79%) compared with 67% (95% CI 56% to 75%) with no AE; p=0.064). Among specific irAEs, grades 1-2 rash was most significantly associated with RFS (p=0.002) and OS (p=0.003). In multivariate models adjusting for prognostic factors, the most significant associations were seen for grades 1-2 rash with RFS (p<0.001, HR=0.70) and OS (p=0.01, HR=0.71) and for grades 1-2 endocrine+rash with RFS (p<0.001, HR=0.66) and OS (p=0.008, HR=0.7). Overall, grades 1-2 irAEs had the best prognosis in terms of RFS and OS and those with grades 3-4 had less RFS benefits and no OS advantage over no irAE. Patients experiencing grades 3-4 irAE had significantly higher exposure to corticosteroids and immunosuppressants than those with grades 1-2 (92% vs 60%; p<0.001), but no significant associations were found between corticosteroid and immunosuppressant use and RFS or OS. In investigating the impact of non-corticosteroid immunosuppressants, although there were trends toward better RFS and OS favoring cases who were not exposed, no significant associations were found. CONCLUSIONS: Rash and endocrine irAEs were independent prognostic factors of RFS and OS in patients treated with adjuvant ipilimumab. Patients experiencing lower grade irAEs derived the most benefit, but we found no significant evidence supporting a negative impact of high dose corticosteroids and immunosuppressants more commonly used to manage grades 3-4 irAEs.

To ban or not to ban tanning bed use for minors: A cost-effectiveness analysis from multiple US perspectives for invasive melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Tanning bed use is common among US adolescents, but is associated with increased melanoma risk. The decision to ban tanning bed use by adolescents should be made in consideration of the potential health benefits and costs. METHODS: The US population aged 14 to 17 years was modeled by microsimulation, which compared ban versus no ban strategies. Lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were estimated from a health care sector perspective and two societal perspectives: with and without the costs of policy enforcement and the economic losses of the indoor-tanning bed industry. RESULTS: Full adherence to the ban prevented 15,102 melanoma cases and 3299 recurrences among 17.1 million minors, saving $61in formal and informal health care costs per minor and providing an increase of 0.0002 QALYs. Despite the intervention costs of the ban and the economic losses to the indoor-tanning industry, banning was still the dominant strategy, with a savings of $12 per minor and $205.4 million among 17.1 million minors. Findings were robust against varying inspection costs and ban compliance, but were sensitive to lower excess risk of melanoma with early exposure to tanning beds. CONCLUSIONS: A ban on tanning beds for minors potentially lowers costs and increases cost effectiveness. Even after accounting for the costs of implementing a ban, it may be considered cost effective. Even after accounting for the costs of implementing a ban and economic losses in the indoor-tanning industry, a tanning bed ban for US minors may be considered cost effective. A ban has the potential to reduce the number of melanoma cases while decreasing health care costs. LAY SUMMARY: Previous meta-analyses have linked tanning bed use with an increased risk of melanoma, particularly with initial use at a young age. Yet, it remains unclear whether a ban of adolescents would be cost effective. Overall, a ban has the potential to reduce the number of melanoma cases while promoting a decrease in health care costs. Even after accounting for the costs of implementing a ban and the economic losses incurred by the indoor-tanning industry, a ban would be cost effective.

Restructuring Skin Cancer Care in Ontario: A Provincial Plan.

There is a global rise in skin cancer incidence, resulting in an increase in patient care needs and healthcare costs. To optimize health care planning, costs, and patient care, Ontario Health developed a provincial skin cancer plan to streamline the quality of care. We conducted a systematic review and a grey literature search to evaluate the definitions and management of skin cancer within other jurisdictions, as well as a provincial survey of skin cancer care practices, to identify care gaps. The systematic review did not identify any published comprehensive skin cancer management plans. The grey literature search revealed skin cancer plans in isolated regions of the United Kingdom (U.K.), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for skin cancer quality indicators and regional skin cancer biopsy clinics, and wait time guidelines in Australia and the U.K. With the input of the Ontario Cancer Advisory Committee (CAC), unique definitions for complex and non-complex skin cancers and the appropriate cancer services were created. A provincial survey of skin cancer care yielded 44 responses and demonstrated gaps in biopsy access. A skin cancer pathway map was created and a recommendation was made for regional skin cancer biopsy clinics. We have created unique definitions for complex and non-complex skin cancer and a skin cancer pathways map, which will allow for the implementation of both process and performance metrics to address identified gaps in care.

Evaluation of a Multidisciplinary Immunotherapy Toxicity Monitoring Program for Patients Receiving Ipilimumab for Metastatic Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab is an effective treatment for melanoma; however, toxicity rates remain high. The objective of this study was to describe the rates of adverse events (AEs), emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and nursing resource utilization for patients enrolled in a nurse-led telephone toxicity monitoring program. METHODS: Patients received weekly telephone calls from nursing to review a toxicity checklist during ipilimumab treatment and for 8 weeks after completion. To evaluate this program, a single-center retrospective review was performed for patients treated between July 2012 and September 2017 with single agent ipilimumab for advanced melanoma. Data were collected up to 3 months post-ipilimumab. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were included, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 61 (14.6) years. Thirty-three (49%) patients received four doses of ipilimumab, and 17 (25%) had one dose delay. The median (IQR) of any AEs reported per patient was 11 (8-17). There were 44 (66%) patients with AEs deemed to be definitely or probably related to ipilimumab, and of those, 3 (4%) experienced a grade 3 AE, whereas 4 (6%) experienced grade 4 AEs. Twenty patients (30%) had ER visits, and 31 (46%) were hospitalized during follow-up (9% ER visits and 6% hospitalizations were related to drug toxicity). CONCLUSION: Ipilimumab is associated with high rates of toxicity; however, a proactive nurse-led monitoring program was feasible and patients had low rates of grade 3-4 toxicity. Hospitalization rates and ER visits remained high; however, the minority of those were related to drug toxicity.

Real-world, population-based cohort study of toxicity and resource utilization of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma in Ontario, Canada.

Second-line ipilimumab has been publicly funded in Ontario for metastatic melanoma (MM) since September 2012. We examined real-world toxicity of second-line ipilimumab compared to standard second-line treatments prior to funding. MM patients who received systemic treatment from April 2005 to March 2015 were included. Patients receiving second-line ipilimumab after September 2012 were considered as cases, and those who received second-line treatment prior to the funding date were included as historical controls. Outcomes assessed include treatment-related mortality, any-cause hospital visits, ipilimumab-related hospital visits and specialist visits (eg, endocrinologists, ophthalmologists, gastroenterologists, rheumatologists and respirologists), which were captured from up to 30 and/or 90 days after end of second-line treatment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences between groups. Odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regressions and rate ratios (RRs) from rate regressions were used to assess differences between groups. We identified 329 MM patients who received second-line treatments (ipilimumab: 189; controls: 140). Ipilimumab was associated greater any-cause (60.1% vs 45.7%; OR = 1.81; P value = .019) and ipilimumab-related (47.2% vs 31.9%; OR = 1.91; P value = .011) hospital visits. Adjusting for different follow-up days, ipilimumab was associated with higher rates of all-cause (RR = 1.56 [95%CI: 1.12-2.16]), and ipilimumab-related (RR = 2.18 [95% CI: 1.45-3.27]) hospital visits. Patients receiving ipilimumab were more likely to visit specialist involved in immunotherapy toxicity management (23.5% vs 13.7%; P value = .04). Compared to historical second-line treatments, second-line ipilimumab was associated with more health service utilization (specifically hospital visits and specialist visits), suggestive of potentially increased toxicity in the real world.

Systemic adjuvant therapy for adult patients at high risk for recurrent melanoma: A systematic review.

Cutaneous melanoma is typically treated with wide local excision and, when appropriate, a sentinel node biopsy. Many patients are cured with this approach but for patients who have cancers with high risk features there is a significant risk of local and distant relapse and death. Interferon-based adjuvant therapy was recommended in the past but had modest results with significant toxicity. Recently, new therapies (immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) have been found to be effective in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma and many of these therapies have been evaluated and found to be effective in the adjuvant treatment of high risk patients with melanoma. This systematic review of adjuvant therapies for cutaneous and mucosal melanoma was conducted for Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) as the basis of a clinical practice guideline to address the question of whether patients with completely resected melanoma should be considered for adjuvant systemic therapy and which adjuvant therapy should be used.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: For novel cancer treatments, effectiveness in clinical practice is not always aligned with clinical efficacy results. As such it is important to understand a treatment's real-world effectiveness. We examined real-world population-based comparative effectiveness of second-line ipilimumab versus non-ipilimumab treatments (chemotherapy or targeted treatments). METHODS: We used a cohort of melanoma patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced disease since April 2005 from Ontario, Canada. Patients were identified from provincial drug databases and the Ontario Cancer Registry who received second-line ipilimumab from 2012 to 2015 (treated) or second-line non-ipilimumab treatment prior to 2012 (historical controls). Historical controls were chosen, to permit the most direct comparison to pivotal trial findings. The cohort was linked to administrative databases to identify baseline characteristics and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess overall survival (OS). Observed potential confounders were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: We identified 329 patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) who had received second-line treatments (189 treated; 140 controls). Patients receiving second-line ipilimumab were older (61.7 years vs 55.2 years) compared to historical controls. Median OS were 6.9 (95% CI: 5.4-8.3) and 4.95 (4.3-6.0) months for ipilimumab and controls, respectively. The crude 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS probabilities were 34.3% (27-41%), 20.6% (15-27%), and 15.2% (9.6-21%) for ipilimumab and 17.1% (11-23%), 7.1% (2.9-11%), and 4.7% (1.2-8.2%) for controls. Ipilimumab was associated with improved OS (IPTW HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49-0.78; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis suggests second-line ipilimumab is associated with an improvement in OS for MM patients in routine practice.

Phase III Study of Adjuvant Ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) Versus High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b for Resected High-Risk Melanoma: North American Intergroup E1609.

PURPOSE: Phase III adjuvant trials have reported significant benefits in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for high-dose interferon alfa (HDI) and ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (ipi10). E1609 evaluated the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and ipi10 versus HDI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E1609 was a phase III trial in patients with resected cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition stage IIIB, IIIC, M1a, or M1b). It had 2 coprimary end points: OS and RFS. A 2-step hierarchic approach first evaluated ipi3 versus HDI followed by ipi10 versus HDI. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and August 2014, 1,670 adult patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to ipi3 (n = 523), HDI (n = 636), or ipi10 (n = 511). Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 3 occurred in 37% of patients receiving ipi3, 79% receiving HDI, and 58% receiving ipi10, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 35%, 20%, and 54%, respectively. Comparison of ipi3 versus HDI used an intent-to-treat analysis of concurrently randomly assigned patient cases (n = 1,051) and showed significant OS difference in favor of ipi3 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95.6% repeated CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .044; RFS: HR, 0.85; 99.4% CI, 0.66 to 1.09; P = .065). In the second step, for ipi10 versus HDI (n = 989), trends in favor of ipi10 did not achieve statistical significance. Salvage patterns after melanoma relapse showed significantly higher rates of ipilimumab and ipilimumab/anti-programmed death 1 use in the HDI arm versus ipi3 and ipi10 (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with ipi3 benefits survival versus HDI; for the first time to our knowledge in melanoma adjuvant therapy, E1609 has demonstrated a significant improvement in OS against an active control regimen. The currently approved adjuvant ipilimumab dose (ipi10) was more toxic and not superior in efficacy to HDI.

Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006. METHODS: KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAFV600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7-59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5-41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3-22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61-0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6-11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9-4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48-0·67, p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96 (17%) of 555 patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 50 (20%) of 256 patients in the ipilimumab group; the most common of these events were colitis (11 [2%] vs 16 [6%]), diarrhoea (ten [2%] vs seven [3%]), and fatigue (four [<1%] vs three [1%]). Any-grade serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (14%) patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 45 (18%) patients in the ipilimumab group. One patient assigned to pembrolizumab died from treatment-related sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.