Impact of COVID-19 in patients on active melanoma therapy and with history of melanoma

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors. RESULTS: Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors

Assessment of Regional Variability in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer in the United States.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a distinct spatiotemporal pattern in the United States. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, but it is not well known whether COVID-19 outcomes in this patient population were associated with geography. Objective: To quantify spatiotemporal variation in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients with a historical diagnosis of invasive malignant neoplasm and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and November 2020. Data were collected from cancer care delivery centers in the United States. Exposures: Patient residence was categorized into 9 US census divisions. Cancer center characteristics included academic or community classification, rural-urban continuum code (RUCC), and social vulnerability index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary composite outcome consisted of receipt of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated associations of center-level and census division-level exposures with outcomes after adjustment for patient-level risk factors and quantified variation in adjusted outcomes across centers, census divisions, and calendar time. Results: Data for 4749 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-76] years; 2439 [51.4%] female individuals, 1079 [22.7%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 690 [14.5%] Hispanic individuals) were reported from 83 centers in the Northeast (1564 patients [32.9%]), Midwest (1638 [34.5%]), South (894 [18.8%]), and West (653 [13.8%]). After adjustment for patient characteristics, including month of COVID-19 diagnosis, estimated 30-day mortality rates ranged from 5.2% to 26.6% across centers. Patients from centers located in metropolitan areas with population less than 250 000 (RUCC 3) had lower odds of 30-day mortality compared with patients from centers in metropolitan areas with population at least 1 million (RUCC 1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.84). The type of center was not significantly associated with primary or secondary outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome rates across the 9 census divisions, but adjusted mortality rates significantly improved over time (eg, September to November vs March to May: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based cohort study, significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes across US census divisions were not observed. However, substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes across cancer care delivery centers was found. Attention to implementing standardized guidelines for the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 could improve outcomes for these vulnerable patients

COVID-19 Severity and Cardiovascular Outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients With Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. OBJECTIVES: To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD RESULTS: Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all CONCLUSIONS: Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701)

Prognostic Hematologic Biomarkers Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma

Background: There is no standardized treatment for metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) but immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used. While ICI has transformed the survival of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, MUM patients do not equally benefit. Factors known to affect ICI response include the hematologic markers, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR). We evaluated the prognostic value of LDH and NLR at the start of ICI and on treatment in MUM. Methods: MUM patients were treated between August 2006 and May 2022 with combination ipilimumab/nivolumab or ipilimumab/nivolumab/pembrolizumab single-agent therapy. Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analyses were used to assess the prognostic value of predefined baseline factors on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: In forty-six patients with MUM treated with ICI, elevated baseline and on-treatment LDH was prognostic for OS (start of ICI, HR (95% CI): 3.6 (1.9–7.0), p < 0.01; on-treatment, HR (95% CI): 3.7 (1.6–8.8), p < 0.01) and PFS (start of ICI, (HR (95% CI): 2.8 (1.5–5.4), p < 0.0001); on-treatment LDH (HR (95% CI): 2.2 (1.1–4.3), p < 0.01). On-treatment NLR was prognostic for PFS (HR (95% CI): 1.9 (1.0–3.9), p < 0.01). On-treatment LDH remained an important contributor to survival on MVA (OS: HR (95% CI): 1.001 (1.00–1.002), p < 0.05); PFS: HR (95% CI): 1.001 (1.00–1.002), p < 0.01). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that LDH and NLR could be useful in the prognostication of MUM patients treated with ICI. Additional studies are needed to confirm the importance of these and other prognostic biomarkers

Table_1_Treatment related toxicities with combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy in resected stage III melanoma.pdf

Combination dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) is an FDA approved adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. We describe treatment-related toxicities with adjuvant D+T in a real-world population through a retrospective case series. The primary endpoint was development of toxicities.ResultsEighteen of the 20 patients (90%) required at least one treatment interruption due to adverse events (AEs), 11 patients (55%) required a dose reduction and 13 (65%) permanently discontinued therapy due to an AE. The nine patients who did not require dose reduction had been initiated on a lower starting dose of dabrafenib. The most common treatment-limiting AEs were recurrent pyrexia and chills (85%) and liver laboratory abnormalities (50%). The median total time on therapy was 148.5 days (range 19-383), 40.7% (range 5.2-100%) of the intended one-year duration.ConclusionAdjuvant treatment of melanoma with combination D+T is associated with treatment-limiting toxicities in the majority of this patient group. Patients should be carefully monitored throughout therapy.</p

The impact of BRAF mutation status on clinical outcomes with anti- PD- 1 monotherapy versus combination ipilimumab/nivolumab in treatment- naïve advanced stage melanoma

Nearly half of all metastatic melanoma patients possess the BRAF V600 mutation. Several therapies are approved for advanced stage melanoma, but it is unclear if there is a differential outcome to various immunotherapy regimens based on BRAF mutation status. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of metastatic or unresectable melanoma patients who were treated with combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) or anti- PD- 1 monotherapy, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab, as first- line treatment. 235 previously untreated patients were identified in our study. Our univariate analysis showed no statistical difference in progression- free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with ipi/nivo versus anti- PD- 1 monotherapy in the BRAF V600 mutant cohort, but there was improved PFS [HR: 0.48, 95% CI, 0.28- 0.80] and OS [HR: 0.50, 95% CI, 0.26- 0.96] with ipi/nivo compared to anti- PD- 1 monotherapy in the BRAF WT group. After adjusting for known prognostic variables in our multivariable analysis, the BRAF WT cohort continued to show PFS and OS benefit with ipi/nivo compared to anti- PD- 1 monotherapy. Our single- institution analysis suggests ipi/nivo should be considered over anti- PD- 1 monotherapy as the initial immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma patients regardless of BRAF mutation status, but possibly with greater benefit in BRAF WT.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167487/1/pcmr12944_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167487/2/pcmr12944.pd

Phase II study of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant cutaneous melanoma previously treated with or without a BRAF inhibitor

Purpose BRAF mutations promote melanoma cell proliferation and survival primarily through activation of MEK. The purpose of this study was to determine the response rate (RR) for the selective, allosteric MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212), in patients with metastatic BRAFmutant melanoma. Patients and Methods This was an open-label, two-stage, phase II study with two cohorts. Patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor (cohort A) or treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (BRAF-inhibitor naive; cohort B) were enrolled. Patients received 2 mg of trametinib orally once daily. Results In cohort A (n = 40), there were no confirmed objective responses and 11 patients (28%) with stable disease (SD); the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. In cohort B (n = 57), there was one (2%) complete response, 13 (23%) partial responses (PRs), and 29 patients (51%) with SD (confirmed RR, 25%); the median PFS was 4.0 months. One patient each with BRAF K601E and BRAF V600R had prolonged PR. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events for all patients were skin-related toxicity, nausea, peripheral edema, diarrhea, pruritis, and fatigue. No cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma was observed. Conclusion Trametinib was well tolerated. Significant clinical activity was observed in BRAF-inhibitor-naive patients previously treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Minimal clinical activity was observed as sequential therapy in patients previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor. Together, these data suggest that BRAF-inhibitor resistance mechanisms likely confer resistance to MEK-inhibitor monotherapy. These data support further evaluation of trametinib in BRAF-inhibitor- naive BRAF-mutant melanoma, including rarer forms of BRAF-mutant melanoma.8 page(s