Search

Introduction : The difference in incidence and severity of anti-PD-1 therapy-related adverse events (irAEs) between adjuvant and advanced treated melanoma patients remains unclear, as no head-to-head studies have compared these groups. Methods : This multi-center cohort study analyzed melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 in adjuvant or advanced settings between 2015 and 2021. Comorbidities and ECOG performance status were assessed before treatment, and grade III-IV irAEs were monitored during treatment. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with irAE development. Results : A total of 1465 advanced melanoma patients and 908 resected melanoma patients received anti-PD-1 therapy. Adjuvant-treated patients were younger, with a median age of 63 years compared to 69 years in the advanced group ( p < 0.01), and had a better ECOG performance status ( p < 0.01). Comorbidities were seen more frequently in advanced melanoma patients than in those receiving adjuvant treatment, 76% versus 68% ( p < 0.01). Grade III-IV irAEs occurred in 214 (15%) advanced treated patients and in 119 (13%) adjuvant-treated patients. Multivariate analysis showed an increased risk of severe irAE development with the presence of any comorbidity (adjusted OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.02-1.44) and ECOG status greater than 1 (adjusted OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.20-3.32). Adjuvant therapy was not associated with an increased risk of irAE development compared to advanced treatment (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74-1.21) after correcting for comorbidities and ECOG performance score. Anti-PD-1 therapy was halted due to toxicity (any grade irAE) more often in the adjuvant setting than in the advanced setting, 20% versus 15% ( p < 0.01). Conclusions : Higher ECOG performance status and presence of any comorbidity were independently associated with an increased risk of Grade III-IV irAE in adjuvant and advanced treated melanoma patients. Patients treated in the adjuvant setting did not have an increased risk of developing severe irAEs compared to advanced melanoma patients. These findings are of clinical significance in consulting patients for adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment.

Background: Patients diagnosed with haematologic malignancies (HMs) have a higher risk of developing subsequent solid tumours, such as melanoma. Patients with HM were mostly excluded from clinical trials but potentially derive less benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to disease- or treatment-related T- or B-cell dysfunction., Methods: All advanced melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based treatment or targeted therapy between 2015 and 2021 were included from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Progression-free survival (PFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were analysed for patients with HM (HM+) and without HM (HM-). A cox model was used to account for confounders associated with PFS and MSS., Results: In total, 4638 advanced melanoma patients received first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy (n = 1763), ipilimumab-nivolumab (n = 800), or BRAF(/MEK) inhibitors (n = 2075). Concurrent HMs were present for 46 anti-PD1-treated patients, 11 ipilimumab-nivolumab-treated patients and 43 BRAF(/MEK)-inhibitor-treated patients. In anti-PD-1-treated patients, the median PFS was 2.8 months for HM+ and 9.9 months for HM- (p = 0.01). MSS was 41.2 months for HM+ and 58.1 months for HM- (p = 0.00086). In multivariable analysis, the presence of an HM was significantly associated with higher risk of melanoma progression (HR adj 1.62; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.15-2.29; p = 0.006) and melanoma-related death (HR adj 1.74; 95% CI 1.09-2.78; p = 0.020). Median PFS and MSS for first-line BRAF(/MEK-) inhibitor-treated HM+ and HM- patients were not significantly different., Conclusions: Patients with HM and advanced melanoma show significantly worse melanoma-related outcomes when treated with ICI, but not targeted therapy, compared to patients without HM. Clinicians should be aware of potentially altered effectiveness of ICI in patients with active HM., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.vdE. has advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck and has received research study grants not related to this paper from Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idera and TEVA and has received travel expenses from MSD Oncology, Roche, Pfizer and Sanofi and has received speaker honoraria from BMS and Novartis. J.H. has advisory relationships with Achilles Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNTech, Immunocore, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Instil Bio, Ipsen, MSD, Merck Serono, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Neogene Therapeutics, Pfizer, PokeAcel, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, T-Knife and has received research grants not related to this paper from Asher Bio, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, BioNTech, Neogene Therapeutics and Novartis. All grants were paid to the institutions. C.B. has/had advisory role: BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures, received research funding: BMS, Novartis, NanoString, 4SC, stockownership: co-founder Immagene BV and Signature Oncology, patents (incl. submitted): WO 2021/177822 A1, N2027907, P091040NL2. M.A. has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Astellas, Bayer. Research grants Merck-Pfizer. Not related to current work and paid to institute. J.dG. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Novartis. G.H. consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and has received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb, Seerave and were paid to the institution. E.K. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Lilly and Bayer, and received research grants not related to this paper from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre-Fabre. Not related to current work and paid to institute. R.vR. has advisory board/consultancy honoraria from Pfizer and an expert meeting fee from Roche. A.vdV. has consultancy relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Eisai, Merck. M.B.S. has consultancy/advisory relationships with Pierre Fabre, MSD and Novartis. K.S. has advisory relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, AbbVie, received honoraria from Novartis, MSD and Roche and received research funding from BMS, Philips and TigaTx. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Nodular melanoma (NM) is associated with a higher locoregional and distant recurrence rate compared with superficial spreading melanoma (SSM); it is unknown whether the efficacy of systemic therapy is limited. Here, we compare the efficacy of immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) in advanced NM to SSM. Patients with advanced stage IIIc and stage IV NM and SSM treated with anti-CTLA-4 and/or anti-PD-1, or BRAF/MEKi in the first line, were included from the prospective Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The primary objectives were distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). In total, 1086 NM and 2246 SSM patients were included. DMFS was significantly shorter for advanced NM patients at 1.9 years (CI 95% 0.7−4.2) compared with SSM patients at 3.1 years (CI 95% 1.3−6.2) (p < 0.01). Multivariate survival analysis for immunotherapy and BRAF/MEKi demonstrated a hazard ratio for immunotherapy of 1.0 (CI 95% 0.85−1.17) and BRAF/MEKi of 0.95 (CI 95% 0.81−1.11). A shorter DMFS for NM patients developing advanced disease compared with SSM patients was observed, while no difference was observed in the efficacy of systemic immunotherapy or BRAF/MEKi between NM and SSM patients. Our results suggests that the worse overall survival of NM is mainly driven by propensity of metastatic outgrowth of NM after primary diagnosis.