Search

Background: Despite the availability of effective systemic therapies, a significant number of advanced melanoma patients develops brain metastases. This study investigated differences in incidence and time to diagnosis of brain metastasis and survival outcomes dependent on the type of first-line therapy., Methods: Patients with metastatic, non-resectable melanoma (AJCCv8 stage IIIC-V) without brain metastasis at start of first-line therapy (1L-therapy) were identified from the prospective multicenter real-world skin cancer registry ADOREG. Study endpoints were incidence of brain metastasis, brain metastasis-free survival (BMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of 1704 patients, 916 were BRAF wild-type (BRAF wt ) and 788 were BRAF V600 mutant (BRAF mut ). Median follow-up time after start of 1L-therapy was 40.4 months. BRAF wt patients received 1L-therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) against CTLA-4+PD-1 (n=281) or PD-1 (n=544). In BRAF mut patients, 1L-therapy was ICI in 415 patients (CTLA-4+PD-1, n=108; PD-1, n=264), and BRAF+MEK targeted therapy (TT) in 373 patients. After 24 months, 1L-therapy with BRAF+MEK resulted in a higher incidence of brain metastasis compared with PD-1±CTLA-4 (BRAF+MEK, 30.3%; CTLA-4+PD-1, 22.2%; PD-1, 14.0%). In multivariate analysis, BRAF mut patients developed brain metastases earlier on 1L-therapy with BRAF+MEK than with PD-1±CTLA-4 (CTLA-4+PD-1: HR 0.560, 95% CI 0.332 to 0.945, p=0.030; PD-1: HR 0.575, 95% CI 0.372 to 0.888, p=0.013). Type of 1L-therapy, tumor stage, and age were independent prognostic factors for BMFS in BRAF mut patients. In BRAF wt patients, tumor stage was independently associated with longer BMFS; ECOG Performance status (ECOG-PS), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and tumor stage with OS. CTLA-4+PD-1 did not result in better BMFS, PFS, or OS than PD-1 in BRAF wt patients. For BRAF mut patients, multivariate Cox regression revealed ECOG-PS, type of 1L-therapy, tumor stage, and LDH as independent prognostic factors for PFS and OS. 1L-therapy with CTLA-4+PD-1 led to longer OS than PD-1 (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.122 to 3.455, p=0.018) or BRAF+MEK (HR 2.41, 95% CI 1.432 to 4.054, p=0.001), without PD-1 being superior to BRAF+MEK., Conclusions: In BRAF mut patients 1L-therapy with PD-1±CTLA-4 ICI resulted in a delayed and less frequent development of brain metastasis compared with BRAF+MEK TT. 1L-therapy with CTLA-4+PD-1 showed superior OS compared with PD-1 and BRAF+MEK. In BRAF wt patients, no differences in brain metastasis and survival outcomes were detected for CTLA-4+PD-1 compared with PD-1., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors declare no conflicts of interest affecting this study. Conflicts of interest outside the submitted work are as following: CF has been on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore and Novartis and received travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. PM declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis and Merck Sharp & Dome; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall Hermal, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dome, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Medac, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. LB received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma. FriM has received travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria by Novartis, Roche, BMS, MSD and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Novartis and Roche. KK has served as consultant or/and has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis, and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac and Novartis. IG declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall Hermal, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dome, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma and Roche. RG: Invited speaker: Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre. Advisory board: BMS, Roche, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, MSD, Amgen, SUN, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, 4SC, Bayer, MerckSerono, Pfizer, Immunocore. Research grants: Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck-Serono, SUN Pharma, Sanofi. Travel/meeting support: Roche, BMS, SUN, Merck-Serono, Pierre-Fabre. JU is on the advisory board or has received travel support from: Amgen, BMS, GSK, Immunocore, Leo Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Roche. JU has received research support from Novartis; speakers and advisory board honoraria. PT has been on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, Biofrontera, and 4SC and received travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pierre Fabre. RH reports speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Immunocore, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche and SUN pharma outside the submitted work. CP received honoraria (speaker honoraria or honoraria as a consultant) and travel support from: Novartis, BMS, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Celgene, AbbVie, SUNPHARMA, UCB, Allergy Therapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Kyowa Kirin and LEO. AF served as consultant to Roche, Novartis, MSD, BMS, Pierre-Fabre; received travel support from Roche, Novartis, BMS, Pierre-Fabre, received speaker fees from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD and CeGaT, outside the submitted work. She reports institutional research grants from BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie. FZ declares speakers and advisory board honoraria and/or travel support from BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi Aventis. FraM (Frank Meiss) served as a consultant and/or has received honoraria from Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma and travel support from Novartis, Sun Pharma, Roche, Pierre Fabre and MSD. BS is on the advisory board or has received honoraria from Immunocore, Almirall, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, Roche, BMS and MSD, research funding from Novartis and Pierre Fabre and travel support from Novartis, Roche, BMS and Pierre Fabre. AK reports receiving lecture fees and fees for serving on advisory boards from MSD Sharp & Dohme, Almirall, Infectopharm, and Boehringer Ingelheim. JW has been on the advisory board, received honoraria and/or travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre Fabre. TG has received speakers and/or advisory board honoraria and travel support from BMS, Sanofi-Genzyme, MSD, Novartis Pharma, Roche, Abbvie, Almirall, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Merck-Serono. CL has received speaker’s fees, advisory board honoraria and travel reimbursements from Merck, MSD, Roche, Almirall Hermal, Biontech, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, Immonocore, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Novartis. LH has received consultancy and speaker fees from Amgen, Biome Dx, BMS, Curevac, Merck, MSD, Myoncare, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and SUN. SG has been on the advisory board and/or has received travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sun Pharma and Novartis and received research support from Novartis and Pierre Fabre. DD has been on the advisory board or has received honoraria from BMS, Kyowa Kirin, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and received travel grants from Boehringer, Mylan, Pfizer. GS has received honoraria from BMS. GL has received travel support from Sun Pharma. LZ served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Sunpharma and travel support from MSD, BMS, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma, Sanofi and Novartis. EL served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Medac, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Medac, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sunpharma and Novartis. JCB received speaker’s bureau honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer, Recordati and Sanofi, and is a paid consultant/advisory board/DSMB member for Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, InProTher, ICON, MerckSerono, Pfizer, 4SC, and Sanofi/Regeneron. His group received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, HTG, IQVIA, and Alcedis. DS declares relevant financial activities (Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Regeneron, Array, Pierre Fabre, 4SC, Helsinn, Philogen, InFlarX, Merck-Serono, SunPharma, Ultimovacs, Sandoz). SU declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; speakers and advisory board honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis and Roche, and travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pierre Fabre., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

5-ALA fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) is a major advance in neuro-oncological surgery. So far, Protoporphyrin IX (PpIX)-fluorescence has been observed in about half of cerebral metastases resected with routinely equipped microscopes during 5-ALA FGS. The aim of the present pilot study was to quantify PpIX-induced fluorescence of cerebral metastases with a spectrometer. We hypothesize that non-fluorescing metastases under the operating microscope may have spectrometrically measurable levels of fluorescence. A second aim was to analyze correlations between quantified 5-ALA fluorescence and histology or primary tumor type, respectively. Standard FGS was performed in all patients. The fluorescence intensity of the metastasis was semi-quantitatively determined in vivo by a senior surgeon using a special surgical microscope equipped for FGS. A systematic spectrometric ex vivo evaluation of tumor specimens and PpIX-induced fluorescence was performed using a spectrometer connected by optic fibers to a handheld probe. Quantification of 5-ALA-derived fluorescence was measured in a standardized manner with direct contact between mini-spectrometer and metastasis. The difference between the maximum PpIX-fluorescence at 635 nm and the baseline fluorescence was defined as the PpIX fluorescence intensity of the metastasis and given in arbitrary units (AU). Diagnosis of a cerebral metastasis was confirmed by histopathological analysis. A total of 29 patients with cerebral metastases were included. According to neuropathological analysis, 11 patients suffered from non-small cell lung cancer, 10 patients from breast cancer, 6 patients from cancer originating in the gastro-intestinal tract, 1 patient suffered from a malignant melanoma and one patient from renal cancer. The mean age was 63 years (37-81 years). 15 patients were female, 14 patients male. 13 cerebral metastases were considered as ALA-positive by the surgeon. In nine metastases, 5-ALA fluorescence was not visible to the naked eye and could only be detected using the spectrometer. The threshold for an ALA signal rated as "positive" by the surgeon was PpIX fluorescence above 1.1 × 10 6 AU. The mean PpIX fluorescence of all analyzed cerebral metastases was 1.29 × 10 6  ± 0.23 × 10 6 AU. After quantification, we observed a significant difference between the mean 5-ALA-derived fluorescence in NSCLC and breast cancer metastases (Mean Diff: - 1.2 × 10 6 ; 95% CI of difference: - 2.2 × 10 6 to - 0.15 × 10 6 ; Šidák-adjusted p = 0.026). In our present pilot series, about half of cerebral metastases showed a 5-ALA fluorescence invisible to the naked eye. Over 50% of these non-fluorescent metastases show a residual 5-ALA fluorescence which can be detected and quantified using a spectrometer. Moreover, the quantified 5-ALA signal significantly differed with respect to the primary tumor of the corresponding cerebral metastasis. Further studies should evaluate the predictive value of the 5-ALA signal and if a quantified 5-ALA signal enables a reliable intraoperative differentiation between residual tumor tissue and edematous brain-in particular in metastases with a residual fluorescence signal invisible to the naked eye.

Introduction: Recently a mini-spectrometer with a handheld probe quantifying 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) based fluorescence intensity of brain tumors was developped by Kim et al. to improve fluorescence-guided neurosurgery., Objective: To evaluate if this new tool is capable to discriminate nuances of fluorescence intensity of strongly fluorescing tumors (glioblastomas (GBM) and meningiomas (MM)). To study different modes of measurement (touch/no-touch). To determine protoporphyrin IX (PPIX) concentration in tumor tissue as compared to a laboratory spectrometer., Material and Methods: The tumor tissue was resected from patients operated in the neurosurgical department of University Hospital Duesseldorf, Germany between 01/2014 and 06/2014. Two spectrometers, one custom-built with a handheld probe ("mini-spectrometer") and one commercial laboratory spectrometer were employed. After calibration they were used to detect and compare fluorescence intensity of human brain tumor samples ex vivo under standardized conditions. The mini-spectrometer was tested at different distances to the tumor. PPIX concentrations of tumor lysates were determined by both spectrometers., Results: In total n=11 tumors (5 MM and 6 GBM) resulting in 17 tumor biopsies were studied. All GBM showed significant higher fluorescence intensity as compared to MM (Z=-3.123, p=0.001). The fluorescence signal was inversely proportional to the square of the distance (GBM: R 2 =0.226; F=4.683; p<0.5; MM: R 2 =0255; F=8.042; p<0.01). The mini-spectrometer recorded fluorescence signals up to 2mm ("no-touch"). Determination of PPIX concentration in tumor by the mini-spectrometer did not differ from a laboratory spectrometer., Conclusion: The mini-spectrometer was a very sensitive tool for detection of 5-ALA based fluorescence of human brain tumors. Fluorescence intensity of glioblastoma and meningioma were significantly different. A no-touch mode of measurement was possible. PPIX concentration in tumor tissue could be determined as precisely as with a laboratory spectrometer. In future clinical trials the practicability of using such a tool in vivo has to be further evaluated., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)