Search

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Die getroffenen Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der Ausbreitung der Coronavirus-2019-Erkrankung (COVID-19) schränken die sozialen Teilhabemöglichkeiten vieler Menschen ein. Insbesondere Menschen mit chronischen Erkrankungen waren hiervon betroffen. Ziel dieser Beobachtungsstudie war die Untersuchung der sozialen Teilhabe bei Patient:innen mit fortgeschrittenem malignem Melanom mit Immuntherapie unter Pandemiebedingungen. Damit wurde erstmalig soziale Teilhabe als Endpunkt in einer sehr spezifischen Gruppe untersucht. Dies kann als Basis für folgende Studien im wachsenden Kollektiv von Tumorlangzeitüberlebenden in Pandemiezeiten verstanden werden. Methodik Querschnittuntersuchung von Melanompatient:innen mit Erhebung des Index zur Messung von Einschränkungen der Teilhabe (IMET). Ergebnisse werden mit publizierten Normdaten verglichen. Ergebnisse Es wurden 47 Patient:innen mit malignem Melanom in der Auswertung berücksichtigt. Sie waren im Mittel 58,5 Jahre (SD 13,2) alt, 18 Patient:innen befanden sich im Stadium III und erhielten eine adjuvante Immuntherapie; 29 Patient:innen wurden wegen eines metastasierten Melanoms (Stadium IV) behandelt. Die Ergebnisse des IMET ergaben im Gesamtscore keine signifikanten Einschränkungen der sozialen Teilhabe im Vergleich zu den publizierten vorpandemischen Normdaten. Teilnehmerinnen hatten jedoch eine signifikant eingeschränktere Teilhabe. Diskussion Der Endpunkte soziale Teilhabe rückt bei Langzeitüberlebenden mit malignem Melanom in den Vordergrund. Unter Pandemiebedingungen sind insbesondere Patientinnen von Einschränkungen der sozialen Teilhabe gefährdet. Eine Differenzierung zwischen Pandemieeinflüssen und erkrankungsspezifischen Faktoren geht aus unseren Daten nicht hervor. Ausgehend von dieser Studie können und sollten weitere Erhebungen zur sozialen Teilhabe in Zeiten von pandemischen Infektionserkrankungen, insbesondere im wachsenden Kollektiv onkologischer Langzeitüberlebender erfolgen. Graphic abstract

BackgroundDespite 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.MethodsPatients 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).ResultsOf 1704 patients, 916 were BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) and 788 were BRAF V600 mutant (BRAFmut). Median follow-up time after start of 1L-therapy was 40.4 months. BRAFwtpatients received 1L-therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) against CTLA-4+PD-1 (n=281) or PD-1 (n=544). In BRAFmutpatients, 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, BRAFmutpatients 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 BRAFmutpatients. In BRAFwtpatients, 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 BRAFwtpatients. For BRAFmutpatients, 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.ConclusionsIn BRAFmutpatients 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 BRAFwtpatients, no differences in brain metastasis and survival outcomes were detected for CTLA-4+PD-1 compared with PD-1.

Background: Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is modestly impaired in cancer patients due to a generally weakened immune system. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are expected to enhance immune response. This has already been described to be the case in influenza vaccines, and first data about COVID-19 vaccines show a trend in this direction. Aim: We aimed to investigate the immune response of patients with melanoma under ICI therapy after COVID-19 vaccination. Patients and Methods: In the Skin Cancer Center Hanover (Germany), we recruited 60 patients with advanced melanoma who either received ICI therapy during or before the vaccination period. Serological blood analysis was performed using quantitative ELISA for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein 1 IgG antibodies. Results: We did not observe an enhanced humoral immune response in patients under active or past ICI therapy after COVID-19 vaccination. Nevertheless, there is a tendency of higher antibody levels when ICI therapy was received within the last 6 months before vaccination. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients in our study population under ongoing targeted therapy during vaccination period had significantly higher median antibody levels than patients without any active antitumor treatment. Conclusion: Melanoma patients under ICI therapy show comparable antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to healthy health care professionals. This finding is independent of the timing of ICI therapy.

Background Organ transplant recipients show a high incidence for the formation of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), while sirolimus appears to reduce the risk. GRO-α is a chemokine, which is overexpressed in many tumor entities and associated with malignant transformation. However, little is known about the expression and function of GRO-α in human cSCC. Objective Our aim was to investigate the relevance of the GRO-α (CXCL-1)/ CXCR2 axis in human cSCC and the potential impact of sirolimus. Methods We analyzed the GRO-α expression in human keratinocytes, different cSCC cell lines as well as cSCC tissue and investigated its effect on cell proliferation and migration. Additionally, we incubated cells with sirolimus and measured the expression of GRO-α and its receptor CXCR2. Results We showed that both constitutive as well as induced GRO-α expression is higher in in cSCC cell lines compared to keratinocytes and that GRO-α protein is detectable in human cSCC tissue. By GRO-α exposure and shRNA knock down, we identified GRO-α as a driving factor in proliferation and migration. Moreover, in a dermis equivalent GRO-α knocked down cSCC cell lines displayed a reduced capacity in tumor nest formation. Incubation with sirolimus significantly inhibited GRO-α expression in keratinocytes as well as tumor cell lines. Moreover, sirolimus decreased the expression of the corresponding receptor CXCR2. Conclusion Taken together, our results suggest that the GRO-α/CXCR2 axis plays a role in human keratinocyte carcinogenesis and might represent a molecular mechanism for the preventive effect of mTOR inhibitors in cSCC development.

Aim Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) triggers immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The relevance of lipase elevation remains unclear. Patients and methods Skin cancer patients with newly detected serum lipase elevation (at least twofold upper normal limit) or newly diagnosed type I diabetes mellitus upon ICI therapy were retrospectively collected at 14 German skin cancer centres. Results We identified 68 patients with lipase elevation occurring after a median time of 19 (range 1–181) weeks on ICI, 15 (22%) thereof had symptoms consistent with pancreatitis. Forty-seven patients (73%) had other irAE, mainly colitis. Discontinuation (n = 24, 35%) or interruption (n = 26, 38%) of ICI resulted in decrease of lipase after reinduction of ICI lipase levels increased again in 12 of 24 patients. In 18 patients (27%), ICI was continued unchanged, and in 12 (67%) of them, lipase levels normalised. Twenty-two patients were identified with newly diagnosed type I diabetes mellitus related to ICI, and 12 (55%) thereof had also lipase elevation mainly shortly before or after the diagnosis of diabetes. Fourteen (64%) patients had other irAE, mainly thyroiditis. Irrespective of lipase elevation, patients frequently showed a rapid onset with ketoacidosis, decreased c-peptide, and strongly increased blood glucose levels. Conclusion Increased serum lipase during ICI is often not associated with pancreatitis but with other irAE as possible cause. Therefore, it might be sufficient to regularly monitor blood glucose levels and perform further workup only in case of signs or symptoms of pancreatitis and/or exocrine pancreas insufficiency.

Choosing the adequate systemic treatment for melanoma is driven by clinical parameters and personal preferences.Evaluation of the impact of disease and treatment on the daily life of patients receiving systemic therapy for melanoma.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.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.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.

Objectives: Forty to sixty percent of patients with advanced melanoma show primary resistance to PD-1-based immunotherapy, 30–40% of initial responders also progress. Here, we evaluated the outcome of second-line targeted therapy (TT) after progression on PD-1-based immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in BRAFV600-mutated melanoma. In addition, we report data on the activity of re-exposure with PD-1-based regimes. Methods: Patients with advanced (non-resectable stage III or IV, AJCC 2017, 8th edition) melanoma progressing on PD-1-based ICI (nivolumab, pembrolizumab or ipilimumab plus nivolumab) and receiving second-line BRAF plus MEK inhibition were identified from the prospective multicenter skin cancer registry ADOREG. Results: We identified 108 patients with unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma progressing on first-line ICI (nivolumab, pembrolizumab or ipilimumab plus nivolumab) and receiving second-line combined BRAF/MEK inhibition. Seventy-three percent of the cohort presented with primary PD-1 resistant disease. Median progression-free survival (PFS) on ICI was 2.6 (95% CI 2.2–2.9) months. Median PFS on subsequent TT was 6.6 (95% CI 5.4–7.8) months. Median OS from start of second-line TT was 16.0 (95% CI 11.2–20.8) months. The 3-year PFS and OS rates on second-line TT were 16% and 30%. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) to TT were 42.6% and 55.6%. In patients with brain metastases, the ORR and DCR were 31.4% and 43.1%. Patients without brain metastases showed an ORR and DCR of 52.6% and 66.7%, respectively. Response to first-line ICI was associated with a numerically higher ORR and DCR to second-line TT and improved OS on TT. Twenty-three patients received third-line ICI of whom two patients showed an objective response. Conclusions: BRAF plus MEK inhibition shows meaningful activity and outcome in patients with advanced melanoma resistant to anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy. Rates of long-term benefit and survival in our study were similar to those reported for treatment-naïve patients receiving first-line MAPKi.

BackgroundDespite of various therapeutic strategies, treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) still is a major challenge. This study aimed at investigating the impact of type and sequence of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and targeted therapy (TT), radiotherapy, and surgery on the survival outcome of patients with MBM.MethodWe assessed data of 450 patients collected within the prospective multicenter real-world skin cancer registry ADOREG who were diagnosed with MBM before start of the first non-adjuvant systemic therapy. Study endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsOf 450 MBM patients, 175 (38.9%) received CTLA-4+PD-1 ICB, 161 (35.8%) PD-1 ICB, and 114 (25.3%) BRAF+MEK TT as first-line treatment. Additional to systemic therapy, 67.3% of the patients received radiotherapy (stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS); conventional radiotherapy (CRT)) and 24.4% had surgery of MBM. 199 patients (42.2%) received a second-line systemic therapy. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed the application of radiotherapy (HR for SRS: 0.213, 95% CI 0.094 to 0.485, p1 cm: 1.977, 95% CI 1.117 to 3.500, p=0.019), age (HR for age >65 years: 1.802, 95% CI 1.016 to 3.197, p=0.044), and ECOG performance status (HR for ECOG ≥2: HR: 2.615, 95% CI 1.024 to 6.676, p=0.044) as independent prognostic factors of OS on first-line therapy. The type of first-line therapy (ICB vs TT) was not independently prognostic. As second-line therapy BRAF+MEK showed the best survival outcome compared with ICB and other therapies (HR for CTLA-4+PD-1 compared with BRAF+MEK: 13.964, 95% CI 3.6 to 54.4, pConclusionsIn patients with MBM, the addition of radiotherapy resulted in a favorable OS on systemic therapy. In BRAF-mutated MBM patients, ICB as first-line therapy and BRAF+MEK as second-line therapy were associated with a significantly prolonged OS.