Search

Background: Patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma presenting with poor prognostic factors are usually treated with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), consisting of ipilimumab and nivolumab. This combination therapy is associated with severe immune related adverse events (irAEs) in about 60% of patients. In current clinical practice, patients are usually treated with ICIs for up to two years or until disease progression or the occurrence of unacceptable AEs. The incidence of irAEs gradually increases with duration of treatment. While durable tumour responses have been observed after early discontinuation of treatment, no consensus has been reached on optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of ICIs is safe in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy. Methods: The Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 80 patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy of ipilimumab-nivolumab and have a complete or partial response (CR/PR) according to RECIST v1.1 will be included to early discontinue maintenance therapy with anti-PD-1. The primary endpoint is the rate of ongoing response at 12 months after start of ICI. Secondary endpoints include ongoing response at 24 months, disease control at different time points, melanoma specific and overall survival, the incidence of irAEs and health-related quality of life. Discussion: From a medical, healthcare and economic perspective, overtreatment should be prevented and shorter treatment duration of ICIs is preferred. If early discontinuation of ICIs is safe for patients who are treated with the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab, the treatment duration of nivolumab could be shortened in patients with a favourable tumour response. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05652673, registration date: 08–12-2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the improved survival rates of patients with advanced stage melanoma since the introduction of ICIs, many patients do not have (long‐term) benefit from these treatments. There is evidence that the exposome, an accumulation of host‐extrinsic factors including environmental influences, could impact ICI response. Recently, a survival benefit was observed in patients with BRAF wild‐type melanoma living in Denmark who initiated immunotherapy in summer as compared to winter. As the Netherlands lies in close geographical proximity to Denmark and has comparable seasonal differences, a Dutch validation cohort was established using data from our nationwide melanoma registry. In this study, we did not observe a similar seasonal difference in overall survival and are therefore unable to confirm the Danish findings. Validation of either the Dutch or Danish findings in (combined) patient cohorts from other countries would be necessary to determine whether this host‐extrinsic factor influences the response to ICI‐treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Up to 50% of patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma develop brain metastases during the course of their disease. The prognosis of melanoma patients is heavily affected by the presence of brain metastases. Unfortunately, there is a lack of data on prognostic factors for these patients. Many of these patients are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Therefore, the aim of our study was to identify prognostic factors in melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. In a population of 1278 advanced melanoma patients, we found that serum lactate dehydrogenase levels were the strongest clinical parameter associated with survival. This information is useful for both doctors and patients to provide more insight into patients' prognoses. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies improved the overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma. It is not known how often these costly treatments with potential serious side effects are ineffectively applied in the last phase of life. This study aimed to investigate the start of a new systemic therapy within 45 and 90 days of death in Dutch patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS We selected patients who were diagnosed with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, and died between 2013 and 2019. Primary outcome was the probability of starting a new systemic therapy 45 and 90 days before death. Secondary outcomes were type of systemic therapy started, grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), and the total costs of systemic therapies. RESULTS Between 2013 and 2019, 3,797 patients with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma were entered in the registry and died. The percentage of patients receiving a new systemic therapy within 45 and 90 days before death was significantly different between Dutch melanoma centers (varying from 6% to 23% and 20% to 46%, respectively). Thirteen percent of patients (n = 146) developed grade 3/4 AEs in the last period before death. The majority of patients with an AE required hospital admission (n = 102, 69.6%). Mean total costs of systemic therapy per cohort year of the patients who received a new systemic therapy within 90 days before death were 2.3%-2.8% of the total costs spent on melanoma therapies. CONCLUSION The minority of Dutch patients with metastatic melanoma started a new systemic therapy in the last phase of life. However, the percentages varied between Dutch melanoma centers. Financial impact of these therapies in the last phase of life is relatively small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID‐19 pandemic had a severe impact on medical care. Our study aims to investigate the impact of COVID‐19 on advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands. We selected patients diagnosed with irresectable stage IIIc and IV melanoma during the first and second COVID‐19 wave and compared them with patients diagnosed within the same time frame in 2018 and 2019. Patients were divided into three geographical regions. We investigated baseline characteristics, time from diagnosis until start of systemic therapy and postponement of anti‐PD‐1 courses. During both waves, fewer patients were diagnosed compared to the control groups. During the first wave, time between diagnosis and start of treatment was significantly longer in the southern region compared to other regions (33 vs 9 and 15 days, P‐value <.05). Anti‐PD‐1 courses were postponed in 20.0% vs 3.0% of patients in the first wave compared to the control period. Significantly more patients had courses postponed in the south during the first wave compared to other regions (34.8% vs 11.5% vs 22.3%, P‐value <.001). Significantly more patients diagnosed during the second wave had brain metastases and worse performance status compared to the control period. In conclusion, advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands was severely affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic. In the south, the start of systemic treatment for advanced melanoma was more often delayed, and treatment courses were more frequently postponed. During the second wave, patients were diagnosed with poorer patient and tumor characteristics. Longer follow‐up is needed to establish the impact on patient outcomes. What's new? Little is known about the effects of COVID‐19 on advanced melanoma care. In this study, the authors examined several quality indicators of care. They observed a worsening in baseline characteristics, longer time between diagnosis and start of treatment and more postponed anti‐PD‐1 antibody courses with differences between the northern, middle and southern regions. Future studies are necessary to assess the long‐term consequences of our observed changes in advanced melanoma care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are at risk of developing symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). We retrospectively investigated incidence of SSEs and the use of bone health agents (BHA) in a contemporary, treated bone metastatic CRPC population. Although patients with early BHA use had lower incidence rates of SSE and longer SSE-free survival, there was an undertreatment with BHAs in our population. Especially in patients with risk factors as pain and/or opioid use and prior SSE, timely initiation of BHAs is recommended. Background: Patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are at risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSE). Bone health agents (BHA, ie bisphosphonates and denosumab) and new life-prolonging drugs (LPDs) can delay SSEs. The aim of this study is to investigate the use of BHAs in relation to SSEs in treated real-world mCRPC population. Patients and Methods: We included patients from the CAPRI registry who were treated with at least one LPD and diagnosed with bone metastases prior to the start of first LPD (LPD1). Outcomes were SSEs (external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to the bone, orthopedic surgery, pathologic fracture or spinal cord compression) and SSE-free survival (SSE-FS) since LPD1. Results: One-thousand nine hundred and twenty-three patients were included with a median follow-up from LPD1 of 16.7 months. Fifty-two percent (n = 996) started BHA prior or within 4 weeks after the start of LPD1 (early BHA). In total, 41% experienced at least one SSE. SSE incidence rate was 0.29 per patient year for patients without BHA and 0.27 for patients with early BHA. Median SSE-FS from LPD1 was 12.9 months. SSE-FS was longer in patients who started BHA early versus patients without BHA (13.2 vs. 11.0 months, P = .001). Conclusion: In a real-world population we observed an undertreatment with BHAs, although patients with early BHA use had lower incidence rates of SSEs and longer SSE-FS. This finding was irrespective of type of SSE and presence of risk factors. In addition to LPD treatment, timely initiation of BHAs is recommended in bone metastatic CRPC-patients with both pain and/or opioid use and prior SSE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is no consensus on the optimal treatment duration of anti‐PD‐1 for advanced melanoma. The aim of our study was to gain insight into the outcomes of anti‐PD‐1 discontinuation, the association of treatment duration with progression and anti‐PD‐1 re‐treatment in relapsing patients. Analyses were performed on advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands who discontinued first‐line anti‐PD‐1 monotherapy in the absence of progressive disease (n = 324). Survival was estimated after anti‐PD‐1 discontinuation and with a Cox model the association of treatment duration with progression was assessed. At the time of anti‐PD‐1 discontinuation, 90 (28%) patients had a complete response (CR), 190 (59%) a partial response (PR) and 44 (14%) stable disease (SD). Median treatment duration for patients with CR, PR and SD was 11.2, 11.5 and 7.2 months, respectively. The 24‐month progression‐free survival and overall survival probabilities for patients with a CR, PR and SD were, respectively, 64% and 88%, 53% and 82%, 31% and 64%. Survival outcomes of patients with a PR and CR were similar when anti‐PD‐1 discontinuation was not due to adverse events. Having a PR at anti‐PD‐1 discontinuation and longer time to first response were associated with progression [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.81 (95% confidence interval, CI = 1.11‐2.97) and HR = 1.10 (95% CI = 1.02‐1.19; per month increase)]. In 17 of the 27 anti‐PD‐1 re‐treated patients (63%), a response was observed. Advanced melanoma patients can have durable remissions after (elective) anti‐PD‐1 discontinuation. What's new? Reasons for discontinuing treatment with the anti‐PD‐1 antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab can vary significantly among melanoma patients. Moreover, the optimal treatment duration for these drugs remains unclear. In this observational study on anti‐PD‐1 discontinuation, most patients with advanced melanoma who had complete or partial response at anti‐PD‐1 discontinuation experienced ongoing response, with potential survival benefits. Shorter time to first response of anti‐PD‐1 monotherapy and partial response at discontinuation were associated with later progression of disease. Elective discontinuation, by contrast, was linked to a reduced likelihood of subsequent progression. Anti‐PD‐1 retreatment exhibited clinical activity against melanoma, warranting further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The introduction of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockers (i.e. nivolumab and pembrolizumab) has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma. However, the long treatment duration (i.e. two years or longer) has a high impact on patients and healthcare systems in terms of (severe) toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), resource use, and healthcare costs. While durable tumour responses have been observed and PD-1 blockade is discontinued on an individual basis, no consensus has been reached on the optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade is safe in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma who achieve a radiological response.Methods: The Safe Stop trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 200 patients with advanced and metastatic cutaneous melanoma and a confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 will be included to early discontinue first-line monotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. The primary objective is the rate of ongoing responses at 24 months after discontinuation of PD-1 blockade. Secondary objectives include best overall and duration of response, need and outcome of rechallenge with PD-1 blockade, and changes in (serious) adverse events and HRQoL. The impact of treatment discontinuation on healthcare resource use, productivity losses, and hours of informal care will also be assessed. Results will be compared to those from patients with CR or PR who completed 24 months of treatment with PD-1 blockade and had an ongoing response at treatment discontinuation. It is hypothesised that it is safe to early stop first-line nivolumab or pembrolizumab at confirmed tumour response while improving HRQoL and reducing costs.Discussion: From a patient, healthcare, and economic perspective, shorter treatment duration is preferred and overtreatment should be prevented. If early discontinuation of first-line PD-1 blockade appears to be safe, early discontinuation of PD-1 blockade may be implemented as the standard of care in a selected group of patients.Trial Registration: The Safe Stop trial has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), Trial NL7293 (old NTR ID: 7502), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7293 . Date of registration September 30, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of tumor vaccination is currently undergoing a shift in focus, from individualized tailor-made vaccines to more generally applicable vaccine formulations. Although primarily predicated by financial and logistic considerations, stemming from a growing awareness that clinical development for wide-scale application can only be achieved through backing from major pharmaceutical companies, these new approaches are also supported by a growing knowledge of the intricacies and minutiae of antigen presentation and effector T-cell activation. Here, the development of whole-cell tumor and dendritic cell (DC)-based vaccines from an individualized autologous set-up to a more widely applicable allogeneic approach will be discussed as reflected by translational studies carried out over the past two decades at our laboratories and clinics in the vrije universiteit medical center (VUmc) in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The survival of advanced melanoma patients has improved significantly over the last decade due to the introduction of new systemic therapies. It is unknown whether survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients differ between melanoma centers in the Netherlands. This research aimed to assess center variation in treatments and 2-year survival probabilities of advanced melanoma patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in the Netherlands. Significant center variation in 2-year survival probabilities of patients diagnosed in 2014–2015 was observed after correcting for case-mix and treatment with new systemic therapies. The different use of new systemic therapies partially explained the observed variation. From 2016 onwards, no significant difference in 2-year survival was observed between centers. This study shows the added value of quality monitoring with a national registry that enables the study of variation between centers. Background: To assure a high quality of care for patients treated in Dutch melanoma centers, hospital variation in treatment patterns and outcomes is evaluated in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The aim of this study was to assess center variation in treatments and 2-year survival probabilities of patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 in the Netherlands. Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2017 with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Centers' performance on 2-year survival was evaluated using Empirical Bayes estimates calculated in a random effects model. Treatment patterns of the centers with the lowest and highest estimates for 2-year survival were compared. Results: For patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2015, significant center variation in 2-year survival probabilities was observed even after correcting for case-mix and treatment with new systemic therapies. The different use of new systemic therapies partially explained the observed variation. From 2016 onwards, no significant difference in 2-year survival was observed between centers. Conclusion: Our data suggest that between 2014 and 2015, after correcting for patient case-mix, significant variation in 2-year survival probabilities between Dutch melanoma centers existed. The use of new systemic therapies could partially explain this variation. In 2013 and between 2016 and 2017, no significant variation between centers existed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Melanoma is a malignant form of skin cancer. The overall survival of patients with advanced stages of disease were initially low. Fortunately, in recent years systemic treatment with immunotherapy has prolonged survival. We set out to answer the question whether men and women with advanced melanoma differ in prognostic factors, tumor-response to immunotherapy, and treatment-related adverse events. All patients in the Netherlands were registered between July 2013 and July 2018. We showed that although clinical and tumor characteristics differ, the safety profile of immunotherapy is comparable. Furthermore, overall, a 10% survival advantage for women was seen. Following immunotherapy there was no survival difference. Recent meta-analyses show conflicting data on sex-dependent benefit following systemic treatment for advanced melanoma patients. We examined the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (July 2013–July 2018), assessing sex-dependent differences in advanced melanoma patients (stage IIIC/IV) with respect to clinical characteristics, mutational profiles, treatments initiated, grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs), treatment responses, and mortality. We included 3985 patients, 2363 men (59%) and showed that although men and women with advanced melanoma differ in clinical and tumor characteristics, the safety profile of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is comparable. The data suggest a 10% survival advantage for women, mainly seen in patients ≥60 years of age and patients with BRAF V600 mutant melanoma. Following ICI there was no survival difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Trials suggest no differences in immunotherapy treatment between older and younger patients, but mainly young patients with a good performance status were included in these trials. The aim of this study was to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of "real-world" older patients with metastatic melanoma. We included 2216 patients aged ≥65 years from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry and described outcomes of immunotherapy. The study showed that responses and severe side effects did not differ from previously reported younger populations and randomized trials, even in the oldest patients and in patients with other diseases. However, patients aged ≥75 discontinued treatment due to toxicity more often, resulting in fewer treatment cycles. We therefore conclude that immunotherapy seems to have similar effects in older patients compared to younger patients, but the impact of less severe toxicity on quality of life should be further studied as older patients are more likely to discontinue treatment. Background: Previous trials suggest no differences in immunotherapy treatment between older and younger patients, but mainly young patients with a good performance status were included. The aim of this study was to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of "real-world" older patients with metastatic melanoma and to identify predictors of outcome. Methods: We included patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic melanoma from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We described the reasons for hospital admissions and treatment discontinuation. Additionally, we assessed predictors of toxicity and response using logistic regression models and survival using Cox regression models. Results: We included 2216 patients. Grade ≥3 toxicity was not associated with age, comorbidities or WHO status. Patients aged ≥75 discontinued treatment due to toxicity more often, resulting in fewer treatment cycles. Response rates were similar to previous trials (40.3% and 43.6% in patients aged 65–75 and ≥75, respectively, for anti-PD1 treatment) and did not decrease with age or comorbidity. Melanoma-specific survival was not affected by age or comorbidity. Conclusion: Response rates and toxicity outcomes of checkpoint inhibitors did not change with increasing age or comorbidity. However, the impact of grade I-II toxicity on quality of life deserves further study as older patients discontinue treatment more frequently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The treatment landscape has completely changed for advanced melanoma. We report survival outcomes and the differential impact of prognostic factors over time in daily clinical practice., Methods: From a Dutch nationwide population-based registry, patients with advanced melanoma diagnosed from 2013 to 2017 were analysed (n = 3616). Because the proportional hazards assumption was violated, a multivariable Cox model restricted to the first 6 months and a multivariable landmark Cox model from 6 to 48 months were used to assess overall survival (OS) of cases without missing values. The 2017 cohort was excluded from this analysis because of the short follow-up time., Results: Median OS of the 2013 and 2016 cohort was 11.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-13.5) and 17.7 months (95% CI: 14.9-19.8), respectively. Compared with the 2013 cohort, the 2016 cohort had superior survival in the Cox model from 0 to 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.43-0.72]) and in the Cox model from 6 to 48 months (HR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.57-0.83]). Elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, distant metastases in ≥3 organ sites, brain and liver metastasis and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of ≥1 had stronger association with inferior survival from 0 to 6 months than from 6 to 48 months. BRAF-mutated melanoma had superior survival in the first 6 months (HR = 0.50 [95% CI: 0.42-0.59])., Conclusion(s): Prognosis for advanced melanoma in the Netherlands has improved from 2013 to 2016. Prognostic importance of most evaluated factors was higher in the first 6 months after diagnosis. BRAF-mutated melanoma was only associated with superior survival in the first 6 months., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement AvdE reports advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre-Fabre. AvA reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, and 4SC and research grants not related to this paper from Amgen, BMS, and Novartis. JdG reports personal fees outside the submitted work from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, Servier, and MSD, Novartis. GH reports consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, and Novartis and research grants not related to this paper from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Seerave. EK has consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI, Bayer, and Genzyme-Sanofi and research grants not related to this paper from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. KS advisory relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, and Pierre-Fabre. AvdV reports consultancy relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, and Eisai. JH reports advisory relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, GSK, Immunocore, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics and research grants not related to this paper from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Neon Therapeutics. All grants were paid to the institutions. The funders had no role in the writing of this article or decision to submit it for publication., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)