Improving survival in advanced melanoma patients: a trend analysis from 2013 to 2021.

Background: The prognosis of advanced melanoma patients has significantly improved over the years. We aimed to evaluate the survival per year of diagnosis. Methods: All systemically treated patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma from 2013 to 2021 were included from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) were compared between the different years of diagnosis. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between year of diagnosis and OS. Findings: For this cohort study, we included 6260 systemically treated advanced melanoma patients. At baseline, there was an increase over the years in age, the percentage of patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2, with brain metastases, and a synchronous diagnosis of primary and unresectable melanoma. Median OS increased from 11.2 months (95% CI 10.0-12.4) for patients diagnosed in 2013 to 32.0 months (95% CI 26.6-36.7) for patients diagnosed in 2019. Median OS was remarkably lower for patients diagnosed in 2020 (26.6 months; 95% CI 23.9-35.1) and 2021 (24.0 months; 95% CI 20.4-NR). Patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019, although this was not significant. The multivariable Cox regression showed a lower hazard of death for the years of diagnosis after 2013. In contrast, patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019. Interpretation: After a continuous survival improvement for advanced melanoma patients between 2013 and 2019, outcomes of patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 seem poorer. This trend of decreased survival remained after correcting for known prognostic factors and previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment, suggesting that it is explained by unmeasured factors, which-considering the timing-could be COVID-19-related. Funding: For the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing foundation received a start-up grant from governmental organization The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 836002002). The DMTR is structurally funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche Pharma. Roche Pharma stopped funding in 2019, and Pierre Fabre started funding the DMTR in 2019. For this work, no funding was granted.

BRAF/MEK inhibitor rechallenge in advanced melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Effectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking. METHODS: Data from all advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAFi(/MEKi) rechallenge were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The authors analyzed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both first treatment and rechallenge. They performed a multivariable logistic regression and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with response and survival. RESULTS: The authors included 468 patients in the largest cohort to date who underwent at least two treatment episodes of BRAFi(/MEKi). Following rechallenge, ORR was 43%, median PFS was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1-5.2), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.4). Median PFS after rechallenge for patients who discontinued first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.0) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.9) for patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons. Discontinuing first treatment due to progression and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels greater than two times the upper limit of normal were associated with lower odds of response and worse PFS and OS. Symptomatic brain metastases were associated with worse survival, whereas a longer treatment interval between first treatment and rechallenge was associated with better survival. Responding to the first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment was not associated with response or survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that patients benefit from rechallenge. Elevated LDH levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit from rechallenge. A prolonged treatment interval is associated with more benefit from rechallenge.

A prediction model for response to immune checkpoint inhibition in advanced melanoma.

Predicting who will benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in patients with advanced melanoma is challenging. We developed a multivariable prediction model for response to ICI, using routinely available clinical data including primary melanoma characteristics. We used a population-based cohort of 3525 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy. Our prediction model for predicting response within 6 months after ICI initiation was internally validated with bootstrap resampling. Performance evaluation included calibration, discrimination and internal-external cross-validation. Included patients received anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 2366) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 1159) in any treatment line. The model included serum lactate dehydrogenase, World Health Organization performance score, type and line of ICI, disease stage and time to first distant recurrence-all at start of ICI-, and location and type of primary melanoma, the presence of satellites and/or in-transit metastases at primary diagnosis and sex. The over-optimism adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64-0.66). The range of predicted response probabilities was 7%-81%. Based on these probabilities, patients were categorized into quartiles. Compared to the lowest response quartile, patients in the highest quartile had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (20.0 vs 2.8 months; P < .001) and median overall survival (62.0 vs 8.0 months; P < .001). Our prediction model, based on routinely available clinical variables and primary melanoma characteristics, predicts response to ICI in patients with advanced melanoma and discriminates well between treated patients with a very good and very poor prognosis.

High-dose alkylating chemotherapy in BRCA-altered triple-negative breast cancer: the randomized phase III NeoTN trial.

Exploratory analyses of high-dose alkylating chemotherapy trials have suggested that BRCA1 or BRCA2-pathway altered (BRCA-altered) breast cancer might be particularly sensitive to this type of treatment. In this study, patients with BRCA-altered tumors who had received three initial courses of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC), were randomized between a fourth ddAC course followed by high-dose carboplatin-thiotepa-cyclophosphamide or conventional chemotherapy (initially ddAC only or ddAC-capecitabine/decetaxel [CD] depending on MRI response, after amendment ddAC-carboplatin/paclitaxel [CP] for everyone). The primary endpoint was the neoadjuvant response index (NRI). Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). In total, 122 patients were randomized. No difference in NRI-score distribution (p = 0.41) was found. A statistically non-significant RFS difference was found (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.23-1.25; p = 0.15). Exploratory RFS analyses showed benefit in stage III (n = 35; HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.03-0.75), but not stage II (n = 86; HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.30-3.30) patients. For stage III, 4-year RFS was 46% (95% CI 24-87%), 71% (95% CI 48-100%) and 88% (95% CI 74-100%), for ddAC/ddAC-CD, ddAC-CP and high-dose chemotherapy, respectively. No significant differences were found between high-dose and conventional chemotherapy in stage II-III, triple-negative, BRCA-altered breast cancer patients. Further research is needed to establish if there are patients with stage III, triple negative BRCA-altered breast cancer for whom outcomes can be improved with high-dose alkylating chemotherapy or whether the current standard neoadjuvant therapy including carboplatin and an immune checkpoint inhibitor is sufficient. Trial Registration: NCT01057069.

A Survival Tree of Advanced Melanoma Patients with Brain Metastases Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma that develop brain metastases (BM) remains unpredictable. In this study, we aimed to identify prognostic factors in patients with melanoma BM who are treated with ICIs. Data from advanced melanoma patients with BM treated with ICIs in any line between 2013 and 2020 were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were included from the time of the treatment of BM with ICIs. Survival tree analysis was performed with clinicopathological parameters as potential classifiers and overall survival (OS) as the response variable. In total, 1278 patients were included. Most patients were treated with ipilimumab-nivolumab combination therapy (45%). The survival tree analysis resulted in 31 subgroups. The median OS ranged from 2.7 months to 35.7 months. The strongest clinical parameter associated with survival in advanced melanoma patients with BM was the serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level. Patients with elevated LDH levels and symptomatic BM had the worst prognosis. The clinicopathological classifiers identified in this study can contribute to optimizing clinical studies and can aid doctors in giving an indication of the patients' survival based on their baseline and disease characteristics.

Real-world Outcomes of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab Combination Therapy in a Nation-wide Cohort of Advanced Melanoma Patients in the Netherlands.

In phase III trials, ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination therapy is highly efficacious for advanced melanoma, despite many treatment-related grades 3-4 adverse events. Here, we report real-world safety and survival outcomes of ipilimumab plus nivolumab for advanced melanoma. Patients with advanced melanoma who received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2021 were selected from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We evaluated response status at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. OS and PFS were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Separate analyses were performed for patients with or without brain metastases and for patients who met the inclusion criteria of the Checkmate-067 trial. In total, 709 patients received first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Three hundred sixty (50.7%) patients experienced grade 3-4 adverse events, with 211 of the (58.6%) patients requiring hospital admission. The median treatment duration was 42 days (IQR = 31-139). At 24 months, disease control was achieved in 37% of patients. Median PFS since the start of treatment was 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.3-8.7), and median OS was 28.7 months (95% CI: 20.7-42.2). CheckMate-067 trial-like patients had a 4-year OS of 50% (95% CI: 43-59). Among patients with no asymptomatic or symptomatic brain metastases, the 4-year OS probabilities were 48% (95% CI: 41-55), 45% (95% CI: 35-57), and 32% (95% CI: 23-46). Ipilimumab plus nivolumab can achieve long-term survival in advanced melanoma patients in a real-world setting, including patients not represented in the CheckMate-067 trial. However, the proportion of patients with disease control in the real world is lower compared with clinical trials.

Response to checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy in melanoma patients with concurrent haematological malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with haematologic malignancies (HMs) have a higher risk of developing subsequent solid tumours, such as melanoma. Patients with HM were mostly excluded from clinical trials but potentially derive less benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to disease- or treatment-related T- or B-cell dysfunction. METHODS: All advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based treatment or targeted therapy between 2015 and 2021 were included from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Progression-free survival (PFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were analysed for patients with HM (HM+) and without HM (HM-). A cox model was used to account for confounders associated with PFS and MSS. RESULTS: In total, 4638 advanced melanoma patients received first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 1763), ipilimumab-nivolumab (n = 800), or BRAF(/MEK) inhibitors (n = 2075). Concurrent HMs were present for 46 anti-PD1-treated patients, 11 ipilimumab-nivolumab-treated patients and 43 BRAF(/MEK)-inhibitor-treated patients. In anti-PD-1-treated patients, the median PFS was 2.8 months for HM+ and 9.9 months for HM- (p = 0.01). MSS was 41.2 months for HM+ and 58.1 months for HM- (p = 0.00086). In multivariable analysis, the presence of an HM was significantly associated with higher risk of melanoma progression (HRadj 1.62; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.15-2.29; p = 0.006) and melanoma-related death (HRadj 1.74; 95% CI 1.09-2.78; p = 0.020). Median PFS and MSS for first-line BRAF(/MEK-) inhibitor-treated HM+ and HM- patients were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HM and advanced melanoma show significantly worse melanoma-related outcomes when treated with ICI, but not targeted therapy, compared to patients without HM. Clinicians should be aware of potentially altered effectiveness of ICI in patients with active HM.

Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting.

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. Design setting and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa. Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

CT radiomics compared to a clinical model for predicting checkpoint inhibitor treatment outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Predicting checkpoint inhibitors treatment outcomes in melanoma is a relevant task, due to the unpredictable and potentially fatal toxicity and high costs for society. However, accurate biomarkers for treatment outcomes are lacking. Radiomics are a technique to quantitatively capture tumour characteristics on readily available computed tomography (CT) imaging. The purpose of this study was to investigate the added value of radiomics for predicting clinical benefit from checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma in a large, multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients who received first-line anti-PD1±anti-CTLA4 treatment for advanced cutaneous melanoma were retrospectively identified from nine participating hospitals. For every patient, up to five representative lesions were segmented on baseline CT, and radiomics features were extracted. A machine learning pipeline was trained on the radiomics features to predict clinical benefit, defined as stable disease for more than 6 months or response per RECIST 1.1 criteria. This approach was evaluated using a leave-one-centre-out cross validation and compared to a model based on previously discovered clinical predictors. Lastly, a combination model was built on the radiomics and clinical model. RESULTS: A total of 620 patients were included, of which 59.2% experienced clinical benefit. The radiomics model achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.607 [95% CI, 0.562-0.652], lower than that of the clinical model (AUROC=0.646 [95% CI, 0.600-0.692]). The combination model yielded no improvement over the clinical model in terms of discrimination (AUROC=0.636 [95% CI, 0.592-0.680]) or calibration. The output of the radiomics model was significantly correlated with three out of five input variables of the clinical model (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The radiomics model achieved a moderate predictive value of clinical benefit, which was statistically significant. However, a radiomics approach was unable to add value to a simpler clinical model, most likely due to the overlap in predictive information learned by both models. Future research should focus on the application of deep learning, spectral CT-derived radiomics, and a multimodal approach for accurately predicting benefit to checkpoint inhibitor treatment in advanced melanoma.

Adjuvant treatment of in-transit melanoma: Narrowing the knowledge gap left by clinical trials.

Few clinical trials address efficacy of adjuvant systemic treatment in patients with in-transit melanoma (ITM). This study describes adjuvant systemic therapy of ITM patients beyond clinical trials. In this study, we included stage III adjuvant-treated melanoma patients registered in the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry between July 2018 and December 2020. Patients were divided into three groups: nodal disease only, ITM only and ITM and nodal disease. Recurrence patterns, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) at 12-months were analyzed. In our study population of 1037 patients, 66.8% had nodal disease only, 16.7% had ITM only and 16.2% had ITM with nodal disease. RFS at 12-months was comparable in the nodal only and ITM only group (72.2% vs70.1%, P = .97) but lower in ITM and nodal disease patients (57.8%; P = .01, P < .01). Locoregional metastases occurred as first recurrence in 38.9% nodal disease only, 71.9% of ITM-only and 44.0% of ITM and nodal disease patients. Distant recurrences occurred in 42.3%, 18.8% and 36.0%, respectively (P = .02). 12-months OS was not significantly different for nodal disease only patients compared with ITM-only (94.4% vs 97.6%, P = .06) but was significantly higher for ITM-only compared with ITM and nodal disease patients (97.6% vs 91.0%, P < .01). In conclusion, we showed that in the adjuvant setting, RFS rates in ITM-only patients are similar to non-ITM, though better than in ITM and nodal disease patients. Adjuvant-treated ITM-only patients less often experience distant recurrences and have a superior OS compared with ITM and nodal disease patients.

Time interval from primary melanoma to first distant recurrence in relation to patient outcomes in advanced melanoma.

Since the introduction of BRAF(/MEK) inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), the prognosis of advanced melanoma has greatly improved. Melanoma is known for its remarkably long time to first distant recurrence (TFDR), which can be decades in some patients and is partly attributed to immune-surveillance. We investigated the relationship between TFDR and patient outcomes after systemic treatment for advanced melanoma. We selected patients undergoing first-line systemic therapy for advanced melanoma from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The association between TFDR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed by Cox proportional hazard regression models. The TFDR was modeled categorically, linearly, and flexibly using restricted cubic splines. Patients received anti-PD-1-based treatment (n = 1844) or BRAF(/MEK) inhibition (n = 1618). For ICI-treated patients with a TFDR <2 years, median OS was 25.0 months, compared to 37.3 months for a TFDR >5 years (P = .014). Patients treated with BRAF(/MEK) inhibition with a longer TFDR also had a significantly longer median OS (8.6 months for TFDR <2 years compared to 11.1 months for >5 years, P = .004). The hazard of dying rapidly decreased with increasing TFDR until approximately 5 years (HR 0.87), after which the hazard of dying further decreased with increasing TFDR, but less strongly (HR 0.82 for a TFDR of 10 years and HR 0.79 for a TFDR of 15 years). Results were similar when stratifying for type of treatment. Advanced melanoma patients with longer TFDR have a prolonged PFS and OS, irrespective of being treated with first-line ICI or targeted therapy.

Population mortality in advanced melanoma patients with and without response and progression; data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry.

INTRODUCTION: When analysing patient survival, one is often interested in cause of death. Little is known about the presence of population mortality in advanced melanoma patients. The aim of this study was to assess population mortality after different response states in advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands, and analyse the contribution of disease and population mortality for different age groups. METHODS: We selected patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2019 with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. A multi-state model with response states integrating population mortality was fitted. One-year landmark analyses were performed to assess outcomes after each response state. RESULTS: Overall, 5119 patients were selected. Five-year probabilities of melanoma-related mortality in patients alive in complete response at one year after diagnosis increased with age, and was 17.2% (95% confidence interval: 13.0-21.4) for patients aged <65 years and 28.7% (95% confidence interval: 24.3-33.1) in patients aged ≥80 years. Population mortality only played a large role for older patients (75 years and above) alive at 1 year after diagnosis with a partial or complete response. CONCLUSION: Even though survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients have improved over the last decade, the vast majority of patients still die due to melanoma-related mortality.

Adjuvant BRAF-MEK Inhibitors versus Anti PD-1 Therapy in Stage III Melanoma: A Propensity-Matched Outcome Analysis.

Adjuvant BRAF/MEK- and anti-PD-1 inhibition have significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to placebo in resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. However, data beyond the clinical trial setting are limited. This study describes the toxicity and survival of patients treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEK inhibitors and compares outcomes to adjuvant anti-PD-1. For this study, stage III BRAF V600 mutant cutaneous melanoma patients treated with adjuvant BRAF/MEK-inhibition or anti-PD-1 were identified from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. BRAF/MEK- and anti-PD-1-treated patients were matched based on propensity scores, and RFS at 12 and 18 months were estimated. Between 1 July 2018 and 31 December 2021, 717 patients were identified. Of these, 114 patients with complete records were treated with BRAF/MEK therapy and 532 with anti-PD-1. Comorbidities (p = 0.04) and geographical region (p < 0.01) were associated with treatment choice. In 45.6% of BRAF/MEK-treated patients, treatment was prematurely discontinued. Grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 11.5% of patients and was the most common cause of early discontinuation (71.1%). At 12 and 18 months, RFS in BRAF/MEK-treated patients was 85% and 70%, compared to 68% and 68% in matched anti-PD-1-treated patients (p = 0.03). In conclusion, comorbidities and geographical region determine the choice of adjuvant treatment in patients with resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. With the currently limited follow-up, BRAF/MEK-treated patients have better RFS at 12 months than matched anti-PD-1-treated patients, but this difference is no longer observed at 18 months. Therefore, longer follow-up data are necessary to estimate long-term effectiveness.

Health-related quality of life, psychological distress, and fatigue in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with radium-223 therapy.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 is a registered treatment option for symptomatic bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Aim of this multicenter, prospective observational cohort study was to evaluate health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), psychological distress and fatigue in mCRPC patients treated with radium-223. METHODS: Primary endpoint was cancer-specific and bone metastases-related HR-QoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BM-22 questionnaires. Secondary endpoints were psychological distress and fatigue, evaluated by the HADS and CIS-Fatigue questionnaires. Outcomes were analyzed for the total cohort and between subgroups (1-3 versus 4-5 versus 6 radium-223 injections). A trajectory analysis was performed to explore HR-QoL patterns over time. RESULTS: In total, 122 patients were included for analysis. Baseline HR-QoL, pain intensity, psychological distress and fatigue were worse in patients who did not complete radium-223 therapy. In patients who completed therapy, stabilization of HR-QoL was perceived and psychological distress and fatigue remained stable, whereas clinically meaningful and statistically significant deterioration of HR-QoL, psychological distress and fatigue over time was observed in patients who discontinued radium-223 therapy. Trajectory analysis revealed that HR-QoL deterioration over time was more likely in patients with baseline opioid use, low hemoglobin and high alkaline phosphatase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who discontinued radium-223 therapy showed worse HR-QoL, psychological distress and fatigue at baseline and more frequent deterioration of HR-QoL, psychological distress and fatigue over time when compared to patients who completed therapy. Specific attention with regard to HR-QoL during follow-up is indicated in patients with opioid use, low hemoglobin and high alkaline phosphatase levels before radium-223 therapy initiation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04995614.

Is a History of Optimal Staging by Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in the Era Prior to Adjuvant Therapy Associated with Improved Outcome Once Melanoma Patients have Progressed to Advanced Disease?

INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is important for staging in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. Did having previously undergone SLNB also affect outcomes in patients once they have progressed to metastatic melanoma in the era prior to adjuvant therapy? METHODS: Data were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, a prospectively collected, nationwide database of patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma between 2012 and 2018. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) was compared between patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma, previously treated with a wide local excision (WLE) or WLE combined with SLNB as initial treatment of their primary tumor. Cox regression analyses were used to analyze the influence of different variables on MSS. RESULTS: In total, 2581 patients were included, of whom 1412 were treated with a WLE of the primary tumor alone and 1169 in whom this was combined with SLNB. At a median follow-up of 44 months from diagnosis of advanced melanoma, MSS was significantly longer in patients who had previously undergone SLNB {median 23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-29) vs. 18 months (95% CI 15-20) for patients treated with WLE alone; p = 0.002}. However, multivariate Cox regression did not identify SLNB as an independent favorable prognostic factor for MSS after diagnosis of advanced melanoma. CONCLUSION: Prior to the availability of adjuvant systemic therapy, once patients have unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma, there was no difference in disease outcome for patients who were or were not previously staged with SLNB.

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Therapy or Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable benefit. Phase 1-2 trials of adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have shown promising responses, but data from phase 3 trials are lacking to determine the role of TILs in treating advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive TIL or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 therapy (ipilimumab at 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). Infusion of at least 5×109 TILs was preceded by nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine) and followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (86% with disease refractory to anti-programmed death 1 treatment) were assigned to receive TILs (84 patients) or ipilimumab (84 patients). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 13.1) in the TIL group and 3.1 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.3) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72; P<0.001); 49% (95% CI, 38 to 60) and 21% (95% CI, 13 to 32) of the patients, respectively, had an objective response. Median overall survival was 25.8 months (95% CI, 18.2 to not reached) in the TIL group and 18.9 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 32.6) in the ipilimumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in all patients who received TILs and in 57% of those who received ipilimumab; in the TIL group, these events were mainly chemotherapy-related myelosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received TIL therapy than among those who received ipilimumab. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02278887.).

Systemic Therapy in Advanced Nodular Melanoma versus Superficial Spreading Melanoma: A Nation-Wide Study of the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry.

Nodular melanoma (NM) is associated with a higher locoregional and distant recurrence rate compared with superficial spreading melanoma (SSM); it is unknown whether the efficacy of systemic therapy is limited. Here, we compare the efficacy of immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) in advanced NM to SSM. Patients with advanced stage IIIc and stage IV NM and SSM treated with anti-CTLA-4 and/or anti-PD-1, or BRAF/MEKi in the first line, were included from the prospective Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The primary objectives were distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). In total, 1086 NM and 2246 SSM patients were included. DMFS was significantly shorter for advanced NM patients at 1.9 years (CI 95% 0.7−4.2) compared with SSM patients at 3.1 years (CI 95% 1.3−6.2) (p < 0.01). Multivariate survival analysis for immunotherapy and BRAF/MEKi demonstrated a hazard ratio for immunotherapy of 1.0 (CI 95% 0.85−1.17) and BRAF/MEKi of 0.95 (CI 95% 0.81−1.11). A shorter DMFS for NM patients developing advanced disease compared with SSM patients was observed, while no difference was observed in the efficacy of systemic immunotherapy or BRAF/MEKi between NM and SSM patients. Our results suggests that the worse overall survival of NM is mainly driven by propensity of metastatic outgrowth of NM after primary diagnosis.

Association of Immune-Related Adverse Event Management With Survival in Patients With Advanced Melanoma.

Importance: Management of checkpoint inhibitor-induced immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is primarily based on expert opinion. Recent studies have suggested detrimental effects of anti-tumor necrosis factor on checkpoint-inhibitor efficacy. Objective: To determine the association of toxic effect management with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab combination therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, multicenter cohort study included patients with advanced melanoma experiencing grade 3 and higher irAEs after treatment with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab between 2015 and 2021. Data were collected from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Median follow-up was 23.6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The PFS, OS, and MSS were analyzed according to toxic effect management regimen. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess factors associated with PFS and OS. Results: Of 771 patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab, 350 patients (median [IQR] age, 60.0 [51.0-68.0] years; 206 [58.9%] male) were treated with immunosuppression for severe irAEs. Of these patients, 235 received steroids alone, and 115 received steroids with second-line immunosuppressants. Colitis and hepatitis were the most frequently reported types of toxic effects. Except for type of toxic effect, no statistically significant differences existed at baseline. Median PFS was statistically significantly longer for patients treated with steroids alone compared with patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (11.3 [95% CI, 9.6-19.6] months vs 5.4 [95% CI, 4.5-12.4] months; P = .01). Median OS was also statistically significantly longer for the group receiving steroids alone compared with those receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (46.1 months [95% CI, 39.0 months-not reached (NR)] vs 22.5 months [95% CI, 36.5 months-NR]; P = .04). Median MSS was also better in the group receiving steroids alone compared with the group receiving steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants (NR [95% CI, 46.1 months-NR] vs 28.8 months [95% CI, 20.5 months-NR]; P = .006). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated with steroids plus second-line immunosuppressants showed a trend toward a higher risk of progression (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00-1.97]; P = .05) and had a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.03-2.30]; P = .04) compared with those receiving steroids alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, second-line immunosuppression for irAEs was associated with impaired PFS, OS, and MSS in patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab. These findings stress the importance of assessing the effects of differential irAE management strategies, not only in patients with melanoma but also other tumor types.