Immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy for melanoma: A patient-oriented cross-sectional comparative multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Choosing the adequate systemic treatment for melanoma is driven by clinical parameters and personal preferences. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the impact of disease and treatment on the daily life of patients receiving systemic therapy for melanoma. METHODS: A German-wide, cross-sectional comparative study was conducted at 13 specialized skin cancer centres from 08/2020 to 03/2021. A questionnaire was distributed to assess patients' perception of disease and symptoms, the impact of their current treatment on quality of life (QOL) and activities, adverse events (AEs), therapeutic visits, as well as believe in and satisfaction with their current systemic melanoma treatment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were rated on a continuous numerical rating scale or selected from a given list. RESULTS: Four hundred and fourteen patients with systemic melanoma therapy were included. 359 (87%) received immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and 55 (13%) targeted therapy (TT). About 1/3 of patients were adjuvantly treated, the remaining because of unresectable/metastatic melanoma. In subgroup analyses, only in the adjuvant setting, TT patients reported a significant decrease in their treatment associated QOL compared to patients with ICI (p = 0.02). Patients with TT were 1.9 times more likely to report AEs than patients with ICI, a difference being significant just for the adjuvant setting (p = 0.01). ICI treatment intervals differed significantly between adjuvant and unresectable/metastatic setting (p = 0.04), though all patients, regardless of their specific ICI drug, evaluated their treatment frequency as adequate. TT patients with dabrafenib/trametinib (n = 37) or encorafenib/binimetinib (n = 15) did not differ regarding the strain of daily pill intake. Patients older than 63 years rated various PROs better than younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients evaluated their treatment mainly positively. ICI might be preferred over TT regarding QOL and patient-reported AEs in the adjuvant setting. Older melanoma patients appeared to be less impacted by their disease and more satisfied with their treatment.

Effects of an immunosuppressive therapy on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic melanoma - An analysis of the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG.

BACKGROUND: The impact of immunosuppressive therapy (IST) on immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is unclear. METHODS: Patients with unresectable advanced melanoma (MM) treated with ICI in the years 2011-2020 were identified from the prospective multicenter German skin cancer registry ADOREG. Patients with IST within 60 days before, or within 30 days after start of ICI were compared to patients without IST. End points were disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) determined by Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors were evaluated in a Cox regression model. RESULTS: Of 814 patients treated with ICI, 73 (9%) received concomitant IST, mainly steroids. Patients with brain metastases (BM) received IST more frequently (n = 34/130 patients; 26%), than patients without BM (39/684 patients; 6%). In patients without BM, IST initiated before, but not IST initiated after start of ICI was significantly associated with worse PFS (univariate hazard ratio (HR) 2.59, 95% confidence interval (95%-CI) 1.07-6.28, p = 0.035; multivariate HR 3.48, 95%-CI 1.26-9.6, p = 0.016). There was no association between IST and OS or DCR. In patients with BM, IST initiated before, but not after start of ICI was significantly associated with worse OS (univariate HR 2.06, 95%-CI 1.07-3.95, p = 0.031; multivariate HR 5.91, 95%-CI 1.74-20.14, p = 0.004). There was no association between IST and PFS or DCR. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving IST 60 days before start of ICI showed a tendency to an impaired therapy outcome. IST initiated within 30 days after start of ICI, mainly due to early side effects, did not affect the efficacy of ICI therapy.

Second-line therapies for steroid-refractory immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) induce adverse events (irAEs) that do not respond to steroids, i.e. steroid-refractory (sr) irAEs, and irAEs in which steroids cannot be tapered, i.e. steroid-dependent (sd) irAEs, in about 10% of cases. An evidence-based analysis of the effectiveness of second-line immunosuppressive agents with regard to irAE and tumor control is lacking. METHODS: The international web-based Side Effect Registry Immuno-Oncology (SERIO; http://serio-registry.org) is a collaborative initiative with the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute to document rare, severe, complex or therapy-refractory immunotherapy-induced side effects. The registry was queried on August 1, 2023 for cases of irAEs which were treated with second-line therapies. RESULTS: From a total of 1330 cases, 217 patients (16.3%) received 249 second-line therapies. A total of 19 different second-line therapies were employed, including TNF-alpha antagonists (46.5%), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG; 19.1%), mycophenolate mofetil (15.9%), and methotrexate (3.6%). Therapy choices were determined by the type of irAE. The time to onset of sr-/sd-irAEs after ICI initiation did not consistently differ from steroid-responsive irAEs. While 74.3% of sr-/sd-irAEs resolved and 13.1% had improved, 4.3% persisted, 3.9% resulted in permanent sequelae, and 4.3% in death with ongoing symptoms. Infliximab exhibited potential for earlier symptom improvement compared to mycophenolate mofetil or IVIG. Tumor response in patients with second-line treated sd-/sr-irAE was similar to patients with irAEs treated with steroids only. CONCLUSION: Several second-line therapies are effective against sr-/sd-irAEs, the second-line therapies show no clear negative impact on tumor response, and infliximab shows potential for faster improvement of symptoms. However, prospective comparative data are needed.

Patterns of care and follow-up care of patients with uveal melanoma in German-speaking countries: a multinational survey of the German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group (DeCOG).

PURPOSE: Uveal melanoma (UM) is an orphan cancer of high unmet medical need. Current patterns of care and surveillance remain unclear as they are situated in an interdisciplinary setting. METHODS: A questionnaire addressing the patterns of care and surveillance in the management of patients with uveal melanoma was distributed to 70 skin cancer centers in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Frequency distributions of responses for each item of the questionnaire were calculated. RESULTS: 44 of 70 (62.9%) skin cancer centers completed the questionnaire. Thirty-nine hospitals were located in Germany (88.6%), three in Switzerland (6.8%) and two in Austria (4.5%). The majority (68.2%) represented university hospitals. Most patients with metastatic disease were treated in certified skin cancer centers (70.7%, 29/41). Besides, the majority of patients with UM were referred to the respective skin cancer center by ophthalmologists (87.2%, 34/39). Treatment and organization of follow-up of patients varied across the different centers. 35.1% (14/37) of the centers stated to not perform any screening measures. CONCLUSION: Treatment patterns of patients with uveal melanoma in Germany, Austria and Switzerland remain extremely heterogeneous. A guideline for the treatment and surveillance is urgently needed.