Real-world healthcare costs of ipilimumab in patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma in The Netherlands.

There is limited evidence on the costs associated with ipilimumab. We investigated healthcare costs of all Dutch patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma who were treated with ipilimumab. Data were retrieved from the nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Costs were determined by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use. A total of 807 patients who were diagnosed between July 2012 and July 2015 received ipilimumab in Dutch practice. The mean (median) episode duration was 6.27 (4.61) months (computed from the start of ipilimumab until the start of a next treatment, death, or the last date of follow-up). The average total healthcare costs amounted to &OV0556;81 484, but varied widely (range: &OV0556;18 131-&OV0556;160 002). Ipilimumab was by far the most important cost driver (&OV0556;73 739). Other costs were related to hospital admissions (&OV0556;3323), hospital visits (&OV0556;1791), diagnostics and imaging (&OV0556;1505), radiotherapy (&OV0556;828), and surgery (&OV0556;297). Monthly costs for resource use other than ipilimumab were &OV0556;1997 (SD: &OV0556;2629). Treatment-naive patients (n=344) had higher total costs compared with previously-treated patients (n=463; &OV0556;85 081 vs. &OV0556;78 811). Although patients with colitis (n=106) had higher costs for resource use other than ipilimumab (&OV0556;11 426) compared with patients with other types of immune-related adverse events (n=90; &OV0556;9850) and patients with no immune-related adverse event (n=611; &OV0556;6796), they had lower total costs (&OV0556;76 075 vs. &OV0556;87 882 and &OV0556;81 480, respectively). In conclusion, this nation-wide study provides valuable insights into the healthcare costs of advanced cutaneous melanoma patients who were treated with ipilimumab in clinical practice. Most of the costs were attributable to ipilimumab, but the costs and its distribution varied considerably across subgroups.

Real-world use, safety, and survival of ipilimumab in metastatic cutaneous melanoma in The Netherlands.

Phase III trials with ipilimumab showed an improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the use and safety of ipilimumab, and the survival of all patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (N=807) receiving ipilimumab in real-world clinical practice in The Netherlands using data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients who were registered between July 2012 and July 2015 were included and analyzed according to their treatment status: treatment-naive (N=344) versus previously-treated (N=463). Overall, 70% of treatment-naive patients and 62% of previously-treated patients received all four planned doses of ipilimumab. Grade 3 and 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 29% of treatment-naive patients and 21% of previously-treated patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Median time to first event was 5.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.7-6.5 months] in treatment-naive patients and 4.4 months (95% CI: 4.0-4.7 months) in previously-treated patients. Median overall survival was 14.3 months (95% CI: 11.6-16.7 months) in treatment-naive patients and 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.6-9.6 months) in previously-treated patients. In both patient groups, an elevated lactate dehydrogenase level (hazard ratio: 2.25 and 1.70 in treatment-naive and previously-treated patients, respectively) and American Joint Committee on Cancer M1c-stage disease (hazard ratio: 1.81 and 1.83, respectively) were negatively associated with overall survival. These real-world outcomes of ipilimumab slightly differed from outcomes in phase III trials. Although phase III trials are crucial for establishing efficacy, real-world data are of great added value enhancing the generalizability of outcomes of ipilimumab in clinical practice.

Switching to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors upon Response to Targeted Therapy; The Road to Long-Term Survival in Advanced Melanoma Patients with Highly Elevated Serum LDH?

The prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma has improved dramatically. However, the clinical outcomes of patients with highly elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) remain very poor. The aim of this study was to explore whether patients with normalized LDH after targeted therapy could benefit from subsequent treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Data from all patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma with a highly elevated serum LDH at baseline (≥2× upper limit of normal) receiving first-line targeted therapy between 2012 and 2019 in the Netherlands were collected. Patients were stratified according to response status to targeted therapy and change in LDH at start of subsequent treatment with ICI. Differences in overall survival (OS) between the subgroups were compared using log-rank tests. After a median follow-up of 35.1 months, median OS of the total study population (n = 360) was 4.9 months (95% CI 4.4-5.4). Of all patients receiving subsequent treatment with ICI (n = 113), survival from start of subsequent treatment was significantly longer in patients who had normalized LDH and were still responding to targeted therapy compared to those with LDH that remained elevated (median OS 24.7 vs. 1.1 months). Our study suggests that introducing ICI upon response to targeted therapy with normalization of LDH could be an effective strategy in obtaining long-term survival in advanced melanoma patients with initial highly elevated serum LDH.

Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: Treatment Strategies and Survival-Results from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary intraocular tumor in adults. Up to 50% of UM patients will develop metastases. We present data of 175 metastatic UM patients diagnosed in the Netherlands between July 2012 and March 2018. In our cohort, elevated lactate dehydrogenase level (LDH) is an important factor associated with poorer survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 9.0, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 5.63-14.35), and the presence of liver metastases is negatively associated with survival (HR 2.09, 95%CI 1.07-4.08). We used data from the nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) providing a complete overview of the location of metastases at time of stage IV disease. In 154 (88%) patients, the liver was affected, and only 3 patients were reported to have brain metastases. In 63 (36%) patients, mutation analysis was performed, showing a GNA11 mutation in 28.6% and a GNAQ mutation in 49.2% of the analyzed patients. In the absence of standard care of treatment options, metastatic UM patients are often directed to clinical trials. Patients participating in clinical trials are often subject to selection and usually do not represent the entire metastatic UM population. By using our nation-wide cohort, we are able to describe real-life treatment choices made in metastatic UM patients and 1-year survival rates in selected groups of patients.

[Recent treatment results for metastatic melanoma: data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry]. / Recente behandelresultaten van uitgezaaid melanoom.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment strategies and survival of patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma since the 2012 introduction of new drugs in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHOD: We analysed data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) regarding patients diagnosed with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma in the period of 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2015. We estimated survival times using the Kaplan-Meier method. The relationship between year of diagnosis and survival was estimated using Cox regression analysis, adjusted for age, WHO performance status, lactate dehydrogenase values, stage, brain metastases and distant metastases. RESULTS: Out of 2,768 registered patients, approximately three-quarters received systemic therapy. This treatment was subject to change every year. Median survival was 10.7 months (95% CI: 9.6-13.2) in 2012 and 13.8 months (95% CI: 11.8-15.6) in 2015. Median survival for patients receiving systemic therapy was 17.1 months in 2015. 2-year survival in this period increased from 23% to 40%. Patients diagnosed in 2015 had better survival than patients of 2014 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82; 95% CI: 0.73-0.93). This was also true for patients receiving systemic therapy (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69-0.91). CONCLUSION: Fast availability of new drugs, initiated by the then minister of VWS (health, welfare and sport) and the professional organisation, has thoroughly changed treatment of unresectable stage IIIc and IV melanoma. Data from the DMTR indicate safe use of these new drugs in daily practice and improved survival of advanced-melanoma patients in recent years.

Vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma patients in real-world clinical practice: prognostic factors associated with clinical outcomes.

The aim of this population-based study was to identify the factors associated with clinical outcomes in vemurafenib-treated patients and to evaluate outcomes across subgroups of patients with different risk profiles. Data were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Time to next treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) of all metastatic melanoma patients who received vemurafenib between 2012 and 2015 were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. A risk score was developed on the basis of all prognostic factors associated with TTNT and OS derived from multivariable Cox regression analyses. Patients were stratified according to the presence of prognostic risk factors by counting the number of factors, ranging from 0 to 6. A total of 626 patients received vemurafenib with a median follow-up of 35.8 months. The median TTNT and OS were 4.7 months [95% confidence intervals (CI): 4.4-5.1] and 7.3 months (95% CI: 6.6-8.0). The strongest prognostic factors were serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, number of organ sites involved and brain metastases. Patients with a favourable risk profile (no risk factors) had a median TTNT and OS of 7.1 (95% CI: 5.8-8.5) and 15.4 months (95% CI: 10.0-20.9). The median OS more than halved for patients with greater than or equal to 2 risk factors compared with patients with no risk factors. The clinical outcomes of vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with a favourable risk profile are comparable with the results of the trials. Combining prognostic factors into a risk score could be valuable to stratify patients into favourable and poor-prognosis groups.

A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes for Breast Cancer: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative.

A major challenge in value-based health care is the lack of standardized health outcomes measurements, hindering optimal monitoring and comparison of the quality of health care across different settings globally. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary international working group, comprised of 26 health care providers and patient advocates, to develop a standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer (BC). The working group convened via 8 teleconferences and completed a follow-up survey after each meeting. A modified 2-round Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the outcomes and case-mix variables to be included. Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients) and online anonymized surveys of 1225 multinational BC patients and survivors were also conducted to obtain patients' input. The standard set encompasses survival and cancer control, and disutility of care (eg, acute treatment complications) outcomes, to be collected through administrative data and/or clinical records. A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree of health outcomes. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline. The ICHOM will endeavor to achieve wide buy-in of this set and facilitate its implementation in routine clinical practice in various settings and institutions worldwide.

Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry: Quality assurance in the care of patients with metastatic melanoma in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the treatment of metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically due to the development of immune checkpoint and mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase inhibitors. A population-based registry, the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), was set up in July 2013 to assure the safety and quality of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This article describes the design and objectives of the DMTR and presents some results of the first 2 years of registration. METHODS: The DMTR documents detailed information on all Dutch patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma. This includes tumour and patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, quality of life, healthcare utilisation, informal care and productivity losses. These data are used for clinical auditing, increasing the transparency of melanoma care, providing insights into real-world cost-effectiveness and creating a platform for research. RESULTS: Within 1 year, all melanoma centres were participating in the DMTR. The quality performance indicators demonstrated that the BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab have been safely introduced in the Netherlands with toxicity rates that were consistent with the phase III trials conducted. The median overall survival of patients treated with systemic therapy was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-11.1) in the first registration year and 12.7 months (95% CI 11.6-13.7) in the second year. CONCLUSION: The DMTR is the first comprehensive multipurpose nationwide registry and its collaboration with all stakeholders involved in melanoma care reflects an integrative view of cancer management. In future, the DMTR will provide insights into challenging questions regarding the definition of possible subsets of patients who benefit most from the new drugs.

An International Collaborative Standardizing a Comprehensive Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement Set for Colorectal Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Global health systems are shifting toward value-based care in an effort to drive better outcomes in the setting of rising health care costs. This shift requires a common definition of value, starting with the outcomes that matter most to patients. OBJECTIVE: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), a nonprofit initiative, was formed to define standard sets of outcomes by medical condition. In this article, we report the efforts of ICHOM's working group in colorectal cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The working group was composed of multidisciplinary oncology specialists in medicine, surgery, radiation therapy, palliative care, nursing, and pathology, along with patient representatives. Through a modified Delphi process during 8 months (July 8, 2015 to February 29, 2016), ICHOM led the working group to a consensus on a final recommended standard set. The process was supported by a systematic PubMed literature review (1042 randomized clinical trials and guidelines from June 3, 2005, to June 3, 2015), a patient focus group (11 patients with early and metastatic colorectal cancer convened during a teleconference in August 2015), and a patient validation survey (among 276 patients with and survivors of colorectal cancer between October 15, 2015, and November 4, 2015). FINDINGS: After consolidating findings of the literature review and focus group meeting, a list of 40 outcomes was presented to the WG and underwent voting. The final recommendation includes outcomes in the following categories: survival and disease control, disutility of care, degree of health, and quality of death. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline to facilitate comparison of results across treatments and health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized set of patient-centered outcome measures to inform value-based health care in colorectal cancer was developed. Pilot efforts are under way to measure the standard set among members of the working group.