Search

Although anti-PD-1 antibody monotherapy (PD-1) is commonly used to treat advanced acral melanoma (AM), its efficacy is limited. Further, data on the efficacy of PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 antibody (PD-1+CTLA-4) for the treatment of AM are limited. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of PD-1+CTLA-4 and PD-1 in the treatment of Japanese patients with advanced AM.This retrospective study evaluated patients with advanced AM who were treated with PD-1 or PD-1+CTLA-4 as first-line immunotherapy in 24 Japanese institutions between 2014 and 2020. Treatment efficacy focussing on the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups.In total, 254 patients (palm and sole melanoma [PSM], n = 180; nail apparatus melanoma [NAM], n = 74) were included. Among the patients with PSM, the ORR (19% vs. 31%; P = 0.44), PFS (5.9 vs. 3.2 months; P = 0.74), and OS (23.1 vs. not reached; P = 0.55) did not differ significantly between the PD-1 and PD-1+CTLA-4 groups. Among the patients with NAM, the ORR (61% vs. 10%; P 0.001) was significantly higher and PFS was longer (6.4 vs. 3.8 months; P = 0.10) in the PD-1+CTLA-4 group than in the PD-1 group. Cox multivariate analysis demonstrated that PD-1+CTLA-4 is an independent predictor of a favourable PFS in patients with NAM (P = 0.002).The efficacy of PD-1+CTLA-4 is not superior to that of PD-1 for the treatment of advanced PSM. However, PD-1+CTLA-4 may be more efficacious than PD-1 for the treatment of advanced NAM.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have a lower efficacy in mucosal melanoma (MUM) than in cutaneous melanoma. The use of combination treatments with radiotherapy (RT) to improve the efficacy in MUM, however, requires further investigation. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 225 advanced MUM patients treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy (PD1; 115) or anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy (PD1+CTLA4; 42) with or without RT (56 and 12, respectively). Treatment efficacy was estimated by determining the objective response rate (ORR) and survival rate with the Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results The baseline characteristics between the two groups in each ICI cohort were similar, except for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in the PD1 cohort. No significant differences in ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were observed between the PD1 alone and PD1+RT groups in the PD1 cohort (ORR 26% versus 27%, P > 0.99; median PFS 6.2 versus 6.8 months, P = 0.63; median OS 19.2 versus 23.1 months, P = 0.70) or between the PD1+CTLA alone and PD1+CTLA4+RT groups in the PD1+CTLA4 cohort (ORR 28% vs 25%, P = 0.62; median PFS 5.8 versus 3.5 months, P = 0.21; median OS 31.7 versus 19.8 months, P = 0.79). Cox multivariate analysis indicated that RT in addition to PD1 or PD1+CTLA4 did not have a positive impact on the PFS or OS. Conclusions A prolonged survival benefit with RT in combination with ICIs was not identified for advanced MUM patients, although RT may improve local control of the tumour and relieve local symptoms.

Background Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody monotherapy (PD1) has led to favorable responses in advanced non-acral cutaneous melanoma among Caucasian populations; however, recent studies suggest that this therapy has limited efficacy in mucosal melanoma (MCM). Thus, advanced MCM patients are candidates for PD1 plus anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) combination therapy (PD1 + CTLA4). Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in MCM, however, are limited. We aimed to compare the efficacies of PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 in Japanese advanced MCM patients. Patients and methods We retrospectively assessed advanced MCM patients treated with PD1 or PD1 + CTLA4 at 24 Japanese institutions. Patient baseline characteristics, clinical responses (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis, and toxicity was assessed to estimate the efficacy and safety of PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4. Results Altogether, 329 patients with advanced MCM were included in this study. PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 were used in 263 and 66 patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between both treatment groups, except for age (median age 71 versus 65 years; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 groups with respect to objective response rate (26% versus 29%; P = 0.26) or PFS and OS (median PFS 5.9 months versus 6.8 months; P = 0.55, median OS 20.4 months versus 20.1 months; P = 0.55). Cox multivariate survival analysis revealed that PD1 + CTLA4 did not prolong PFS and OS (PFS: hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.19, P = 0.30; OS: HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.38, P = 0.59). The rate of ≥grade 3 immune-related adverse events was higher in the PD1 + CTLA4 group than in the PD1 group (53% versus 17%; P < 0.001). Conclusions First-line PD1 + CTLA4 demonstrated comparable clinical efficacy to PD1 in Japanese MCM patients, but with a higher rate of immune-related adverse events., Highlights • Anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 antibody therapy (PD1 + CTLA4) is an option for patients with advanced mucosal melanoma (MCM). • Data on the efficacy of PD1 + CTLA4 compared with PD-1 monotherapy (PD1) for MCM, however, are limited. • We retrospectively analyzed data from 329 Japanese patients with advanced MCM treated with PD1 or PD1 + CTLA4. • No significant differences in objective response rate, progression-free survival, or overall survival were observed. • Immune-related adverse events resulting in treatment cessation were higher in the PD1 + CTLA4 group.