Impact of radiotherapy and sequencing of systemic therapy on survival outcomes in melanoma patients with previously untreated brain metastasis: a multicenter DeCOG study on 450 patients from the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

BACKGROUND: Despite 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. METHOD: We 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). RESULTS: Of 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, p<0.001; for PD-1 vs BRAF+MEK: 4.587 95% CI 1.3 to 16.8, p=0.022 for OS). Regarding therapy sequencing, patients treated with ICB as first-line therapy and BRAF+MEK as second-line therapy showed an improved OS (HR for CTLA-4+PD-1 followed by BRAF+MEK: 0.370, 95% CI 0.157 to 0.934, p=0.035; HR for PD-1 followed by BRAF+MEK: 0.290, 95% CI 0.092 to 0.918, p=0.035) compared with patients starting with BRAF+MEK in first-line therapy. There was no significant survival difference when comparing first-line therapy with CTLA-4+PD-1 ICB with PD-1 ICB. CONCLUSIONS: In 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

Brain metastasis and survival outcomes after first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma: a multicenter DeCOG study on 1704 patients from the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG

Background Despite 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.Methods Patients 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).Results Of 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. BRAFwt patients received 1L-therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) against CTLA-4+PD-1 (n=281) or PD-1 (n=544). In BRAFmut patients, 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, BRAFmut patients 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 BRAFmut patients. In BRAFwt patients, 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 BRAFwt patients. For BRAFmut patients, 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.Conclusions In BRAFmut patients 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 BRAFwt patients, no differences in brain metastasis and survival outcomes were detected for CTLA-4+PD-1 compared with PD-1

Clinical utility of overviews on adverse events of pharmacological interventions

Background Overviews (i.e., systematic reviews of systematic reviews, meta-reviews, umbrella reviews) are a relatively new type of evidence synthesis. Among others, one reason to conduct an overview is to investigate adverse events (AEs) associated with a healthcare intervention. Overviews aim to provide easily accessible information for healthcare decision-makers including clinicians. We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of overviews investigating AEs. Methods We used a sample of 27 overviews exclusively investigating drug-related adverse events published until 2021 identified in a prior project. We defined clinical utility as the extent to which overviews are perceived to be useful in clinical practice. Each included overview was assigned to one of seven pharmacological experts with expertise on the topic of the overview. The clinical utility and value of these overviews were determined using a self-developed assessment tool. This included four open-ended questions and a ranking of three clinical utility statements completed by clinicians. We calculated frequencies for the ranked clinical utility statements and coded the answers to the open-ended questions using an inductive approach. Results The overall agreement with the provided statements was high. According to the assessments, 67% of the included overviews generated new knowledge. In 93% of the assessments, the overviews were found to add value to the existing literature. The overviews were rated as more useful than the individual included systematic reviews (SRs) in 85% of the assessments. The answers to the open-ended questions revealed two key aspects of clinical utility in the included overviews. Firstly, it was considered useful that they provide a summary of available evidence (e.g., along with additional assessments, or across different populations, or in different settings that have not been evaluated together in the included SRs). Secondly, it was found useful if overviews conducted a new meta-analysis to answer specific research questions that had not been answered previously. Conclusions Overviews on drug-related AEs are considered valuable for clinical practice by clinicians. They can make available evidence on AEs more accessible and provide a comprehensive view of available evidence. As the role of overviews evolves, investigations such as this can identify areas of value.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCReviewedFacultyResearche

Real-world outcomes using PD-1 antibodies and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for adjuvant melanoma treatment from 39 skin cancer centers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland

BackgroundProgrammed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies and BRAF + MEK inhibitors are widely used for adjuvant therapy of fully resected high-risk melanoma. Little is known about treatment efficacy outside of phase III trials. This real-world study reports on clinical outcomes of modern adjuvant melanoma treatment in specialized skin cancer centers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. MethodsMulticenter, retrospective study investigating stage III-IV melanoma patients receiving adjuvant nivolumab (NIV), pembrolizumab (PEM) or dabrafenib + trametinib (D + T) between 1/2017 and 10/2021. The primary endpoint was 12-month recurrence-free survival (RFS). Further analyses included descriptive and correlative statistics, and a multivariate linear-regression machine learning model to assess the risk of early melanoma recurrence. ResultsIn total, 1198 patients from 39 skin cancer centers from Germany, Austria and Switzerland were analysed. The vast majority received anti PD-1 therapies (n = 1003). Twelve-month RFS for anti PD-1 and BRAF + MEK inhibitor-treated patients were 78.1% and 86.5%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.998 [95% CI 1.335-2.991]; p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) in anti PD-1 (95.8%) and BRAF + MEK inhibitor (96.9%) treated patients (p > 0.05) during the median follow-up of 17 months. Data indicates that anti PD-1 treated patients who develop immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have lower recurrence rates compared to patients with no irAEs (HR 0.578 [95% CI 0.443-0.754], p = 0.001). BRAF mutation status did not affect overall efficacy of anti PD-1 treatment (p > 0.05). In both, anti PD-1 and BRAF + MEK inhibitor treated cohorts, data did not show any difference in 12-month RFS and 12-month OS comparing patients receiving total lymph node dissection (TLND) versus sentinel lymph node biopsy only (p > 0.05). The recurrence prediction model reached high specificity but only low sensitivity with an AUC = 0.65. No new safety signals were detected. Overall, recorded numbers and severity of adverse events were lower than reported in pivotal phase III trials. ConclusionsDespite recent advances in adjuvant melanoma treatment, early recurrence remains a significant clinical challenge. This study shows that TLND does not reduce the risk of early melanoma recurrence and should only be considered in selected patients. Data further highlight that variables collected during clinical routine are unlikely to allow for a clinically relevant prediction of individual recurrence risk