Evaluation of Systemic Therapy for Advanced Melanoma:Analyses of The Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry Data

The studies in this thesis aimed to provide insight in the real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands, to investigate the outcomes of BRAF V600-mutant and wild-type patients, to describe advanced melanoma care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess and describe the added value of quality registries. Chapter 2. Real-world outcomes of first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab Ipilimumab plus nivolumab is the most recent major addition of systemic therapies for the treatment of advanced melanoma. We observed that real-world patients receiving first-line ipilimumab plus nivolumab can achieve long-term survival, including patients with characteristics that were not represented in the clinical trial. Chapter 3. Hospital variation survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients In 2014-2015, there was significant hospital variation in 2-year survival outcomes, even after correcting for case-mix and treatment with new systemic therapies. This significant variation may be caused by differences in uptake of new systemic therapies. From 2016 onwards, no significant differences in 2-year overall survival (OS) probabilities existed. Chapter 4. Population mortality in advanced melanoma patients In this chapter we investigate the relative contribution of population mortality in each response state for different age groups. Population mortality only played a large role for older patients alive at 1 year after diagnosis with a partial response (PR) or CR. Even though survival outcomes of advanced melanoma patients have improved over the last decade, the vast majority of patients still die due to melanoma-related mortality. Chapter 5. Outcomes of advanced melanoma according to BRAF V600 status Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma. Patients with BRAF V600-mutant disease are able to receive both systemic therapies while patients with BRAF V600 wild-type disease can only use anti-PD-1 antibodies. The results in this chapter suggest that advanced melanoma patients with BRAF V600 wild-type disease patients have worse survival compared to patients with a BRAF V600-mutant disease during the first 10 months after diagnosis because of less available treatment options. Chapter 6. Comparison of anti-PD-1 and BRAF/MEK inhibitors In Chapter 6, we compare survival outcomes of patients with starting with anti-PD-1 monotherapy versus BRAF/MEK inhibitors using propensity score matching to correct for case-mix factors. We found that after matching, patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies as a first-line treatment had a higher median and 2-year OS compared to patients treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 42.3 months versus 19.8 months and 85.4% versus 41.7%. Chapter 7. Effects of COVID-19 on advanced melanoma care In Chapter 7 we studied the impact of COVID-19 on advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands during the first two waves. The results in this chapter show that advanced melanoma care in the Netherlands was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the south. Chapter 8. End-of-life treatment In Chapter 8 we describe the end-of-life treatment of advanced melanoma patients and present a quality indicator for end-of-life care in advanced melanoma. The results in this chapter show that even though a minority of Dutch advanced melanoma patients start a new systemic therapy of life, the percentages varied between centers. Chapter 9. Linkage of systemic therapies to quality registries One of the main downsides of quality registries is the registrational burden that is associated with them. To decrease this registrational burden, we describe a method to link declaration data from hospital pharmacies to the clinical data from quality registries in Chapter 9. The project shows that it is possible to gather and link declaration data of medicines to existing quality registries

Medication Use and Clinical Outcomes by the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing Medicines Program: Quantitative Analysis

BACKGROUND: The Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA) Medicines Program was set up in September 2018 to evaluate expensive medicine use in daily practice in terms of real-world effectiveness using only existing data sources. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the potential of the addition of declaration data to quality registries to provide participating centers with benchmark information about the use of medicines and outcomes among patients. METHODS: A total of 3 national population-based registries were linked to clinical and financial data from the hospital pharmacy, the Dutch diagnosis treatment combinations information system including in-hospital activities, and survival data from health care insurers. The first results of the real-world data (RWD) linkage are presented using descriptive statistics to assess patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 21 Dutch hospitals participated in the DICA Medicines Program, which included 7412 patients with colorectal cancer, 1981 patients with metastasized colon cancer, 3860 patients with lung cancer, 1253 patients with metastasized breast cancer, and 7564 patients with rheumatic disease. The data were used for hospital benchmarking to gain insights into medication use in specific patient populations, treatment information, clinical outcomes, and costs. Detailed treatment information (duration and treatment steps) led to insights into differences between hospitals in daily clinical practices. Furthermore, exploratory analyses on clinical outcomes (TTNT and OS) were possible. CONCLUSIONS: The DICA Medicines Program shows that it is possible to gather and link RWD about medicines to 4 disease-specific population-based registries. Since these RWD became available with minimal registration burden and effort for hospitals, this method can be explored in other population-based registries to evaluate real-world efficacy

Safety and Efficacy of Checkpoint Inhibition in Patients With Melanoma and Preexisting Autoimmune Disease:A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Because immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs) mimicking immunologic diseases, patients with preexisting autoimmune disease (AID) have been excluded from clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICI in patients with advanced melanoma with and without AID. DESIGN: Nationwide cohort study. SETTING: The Netherlands. PATIENTS: 4367 patients with advanced melanoma enrolled in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) between July 2013 and July 2018 and followed through February 2019. MEASUREMENTS: Patient, clinical, and treatment characteristics; irAEs of grade 3 or higher; treatment response; and survival. RESULTS: A total of 415 patients (9.5%) had AID, categorized as rheumatologic AID (n = 227), endocrine AID (n = 143), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (n = 55), or "other" (n = 8). Of these, 228 patients (55%) were treated with ICI (vs. 2546 [58%] without AID); 87 were treated with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), 187 with anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), and 34 with the combination. The incidences of irAEs of grade 3 or higher in patients with AID were 30% (95% CI, 21% to 41%) with anti-CTLA-4, 17% (CI, 12% to 23%) with anti-PD-1, and 44% (CI, 27% to 62%) with combination therapy; for patients without AID, the incidences were 30% (CI, 27% to 33%) (n = 916), 13% (CI, 12% to 15%) (n = 1540), and 48% (CI, 43% to 53%) (n = 388), respectively. Patients with AID more often discontinued anti-PD-1 treatment because of toxicity than patients without AID (17% [CI, 12% to 23%] vs. 9% [CI, 8% to 11%]). Patients with IBD were more prone to anti-PD-1-induced colitis (6 / 31 = 19% [CI, 7% to 37%]) than patients with other AIDs (3% [CI, 0% to 6%]) and patients without AID (2% [CI, 2% to 3%]). The objective response rate was similar in patients with versus without AID who were treated with anti-CTLA-4 (10% [CI, 5% to 19%] vs. 16% [CI, 14% to 19%]), anti-PD-1 (40% [CI, 33% to 47%] vs. 44% [CI, 41% to 46%]), or the combination (39% [CI, 20% to 59%] vs. 43% [CI, 38% to 49%]). Survival did not differ between patients with and those without AID (median, 13 months [CI, 10 to 16 months] vs. 14 months [CI, 13 to 15 months]). LIMITATION: Information was limited on AID severity and immunosuppressive treatment. CONCLUSION: Response to ICI with anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, or their combination for advanced melanoma and overall incidence of any irAEs of grade 3 or higher were similar in patients with and without preexisting AID. However, severe colitis and toxicity requiring early discontinuation of treatment occurred more frequently among patients with preexisting IBD, warranting close follow-up. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development

Hospital Variation in Cancer Treatments and Survival OutComes of Advanced Melanoma Patients:Nationwide Quality Assurance in The Netherlands

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.</p

Response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in acral melanoma:A nationwide cohort study

Background: Recent reports suggest the limited efficacy of immune checkpoints inhibitors in advanced acral melanoma (AM). This study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with stage III and IV AM and compare them to cutaneous melanoma (CM). Methods: We included patients with advanced AM and CM treated with first-line anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 monotherapy or ipilimumab-nivolumab registered in the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Objective response rates, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the prognostic factors with PFS and OS. Results: In total, 2058 patients (88 AM and 1970 CM) with advanced melanoma were included. First-line objective response rates were 34% for AM versus 54% for CM in the advanced anti-PD-1 cohort and 33% for AM versus 53% for CM in the advanced ipilimumab-nivolumab cohort. The Median PFS was significantly shorter for anti-PD-1 treated AM patients (3.1 months; 95%CI: 2.8–5.6) than patients with CM (10.1 months; 95%CI: 8.5–12.2) (P < 0.001). In patients with advanced melanoma, AM was significantly associated with a higher risk of progression (HRadj 1.63; 95%CI: 1.26–2.11; P < 0.001) and death (HRadj 1.54; 95%CI: 1.15–2.06; P = 0.004) than CM. Conclusions: This study shows lower effectiveness of anti-PD -1 monotherapy and ipilimumab-nivolumab in AM, with lower response rates, PFS and OS than CM. This group of patients should be prioritised in the development of alternative treatment strategies

The unfavorable effects of COVID-19 on Dutch advanced melanoma care

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

Adjuvant treatment for melanoma in clinical practice - Trial versus reality

Background: Little is known about outcomes of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting. Since 2019, adjuvant-treated melanoma patients have been registered in the DMTR, a population-based registry to monitor the quality and safety of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This study aims to describe treatment patterns, relapse, and toxicity rates of adjuvant-treated melanoma patients beyond the clinical trial setting. Methods: Analyses were performed on adjuvant-treated melanoma patients included in the DMTR. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse patient-, and treatment characteristics. A baseline registration completeness analysis was performed, and an analysis on trial eligibility in clinical practice patients. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 12-months was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 641 patients were treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. RFS at 12-months was 70.6% (95% CI, 66.9-74.6) with a median follow-up of 12.8 months. Sex, stage of disease and Breslow thickness were associated with a higher hazard for RFS. Eighteen per cent of the anti-PD-1-treated patients developed grade >= 3 toxicity. Sixty-one per cent of patients prematurely discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy. Conclusion: Adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment of resected stage III/IV melanoma in daily practice showed slightly higher toxicity rates and more frequent premature discontinuation but similar RFS rates compared to trials. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd

First-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients: a propensity-matched survival analysis

Background: Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. Until now, data are inconclusive on which therapy to use as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy vs. BRAF/MEK inhibitors in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma patients. Methods: We selected patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with advanced melanoma and a known BRAFV600-mutation treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD-1 antibodies, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were matched based on their propensity scores using the nearest neighbour and the optimal matching method. Results: Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 330 and 254 advanced melanoma patients received BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as first-line systemic therapy. In the matched cohort, patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies as a first-line treatment had a higher median and 2-year overall survival compared to patients treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 42.3 months (95% CI: 37.3-NE) vs. 19.8 months (95% CI: 16.7–24.3) and 85.4% (95% CI: 58.1–73.6) vs. 41.7% (95% CI: 34.2–51.0). Conclusions: Our data suggest that in the matched BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the preferred first-line treatment in patients with relatively favourable patient and tumour characteristics

Trends in Use and Perceptions About Triplet Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Contains fulltext : 237324.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Nationwide Outcomes of Advanced Melanoma According to BRAF(V600) Status

Item does not contain fulltex