Clinical evaluation of the clinicopathologic and gene expression profile (CP-GEP) in patients with melanoma eligible for sentinel lymph node biopsy:A multicenter prospective Dutch study

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is recommended for patients with &gt;pT1b cutaneous melanoma, and should be considered and discussed with patients diagnosed with pT1b cutaneous melanoma for the purpose of staging, prognostication and determining eligibility for adjuvant therapy. Previously, the clinicopathologic and gene expression profile (CP-GEP, Merlin Assay®) model was developed to identify patients who can forgo SLNB because of a low risk for sentinel node metastasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical use and implementation of the CP-GEP model in a prospective multicenter study in the Netherlands. Both test performance and feasibility for clinical implementation were assessed in 260 patients with T1-T4 melanoma. The CP-GEP model demonstrated an overall negative predictive value of 96.7% and positive predictive value of 23.7%, with a potential SLNB reduction rate of 42.2% in patients with T1-T3 melanoma. With a median time of 16 days from initiation to return of test results, there was sufficient time left before the SLNB was performed. Based on these outcomes, the model may support clinical decision-making to identify patients who can forgo SLNB in clinical practice.</p

Cemiplimab in locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma:prospective real-world data from the DRUG Access Protocol

Background: The DRUG Access Protocol provides patients with cancer access to registered anti-cancer drugs that are awaiting reimbursement in the Netherlands and simultaneously collects prospective real-world data (RWD). Here, we present RWD from PD-1 blocker cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (laCSCC; mCSCC). Methods: Patients with laCSCC or mCSCC received cemiplimab 350 mg fixed dose every three weeks. Primary endpoints were objective clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) at 16 weeks, physician-assessed CBR, defined as clinician's documentation of improved disease or SD based on evaluation of all available clinical parameters at 16 weeks, objective response rate (ORR), and safety, defined as grade ≥ 3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring up to 30 days after last drug administration. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Findings: Between February 2021 and December 2022, 151 patients started treatment. Objective and physician-assessed CBR were 54.3% (95% CI, 46.0–62.4) and 59.6% (95% CI, 51.3–67.5), respectively. ORR was 35.1% (95% CI, 27.5–43.3). After a median follow-up of 15.2 months, median DoR was not reached. Median PFS and OS were 12.2 (95% CI, 7.0-not reached) and 24.2 months (95% CI, 18.8-not reached), respectively. Sixty-eight TRAEs occurred in 29.8% of patients. Most commonly reported TRAE was a kidney transplant rejection (9.5%). Interpretation: Cemiplimab proved highly effective and safe in this real-world cohort of patients with laCSCC or mCSCC, confirming its therapeutic value in the treatment of advanced CSCC in daily clinical practice. Funding: The DRUG Access Protocol is supported by all participating pharmaceutical companies: Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.</p

Cemiplimab in locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma:prospective real-world data from the DRUG Access Protocol

Background: The DRUG Access Protocol provides patients with cancer access to registered anti-cancer drugs that are awaiting reimbursement in the Netherlands and simultaneously collects prospective real-world data (RWD). Here, we present RWD from PD-1 blocker cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (laCSCC; mCSCC). Methods: Patients with laCSCC or mCSCC received cemiplimab 350 mg fixed dose every three weeks. Primary endpoints were objective clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) at 16 weeks, physician-assessed CBR, defined as clinician's documentation of improved disease or SD based on evaluation of all available clinical parameters at 16 weeks, objective response rate (ORR), and safety, defined as grade ≥ 3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring up to 30 days after last drug administration. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Findings: Between February 2021 and December 2022, 151 patients started treatment. Objective and physician-assessed CBR were 54.3% (95% CI, 46.0–62.4) and 59.6% (95% CI, 51.3–67.5), respectively. ORR was 35.1% (95% CI, 27.5–43.3). After a median follow-up of 15.2 months, median DoR was not reached. Median PFS and OS were 12.2 (95% CI, 7.0-not reached) and 24.2 months (95% CI, 18.8-not reached), respectively. Sixty-eight TRAEs occurred in 29.8% of patients. Most commonly reported TRAE was a kidney transplant rejection (9.5%). Interpretation: Cemiplimab proved highly effective and safe in this real-world cohort of patients with laCSCC or mCSCC, confirming its therapeutic value in the treatment of advanced CSCC in daily clinical practice. Funding: The DRUG Access Protocol is supported by all participating pharmaceutical companies: Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.</p

Multi-omic analysis identifies hypoalbuminemia as independent biomarker of poor outcome upon PD-1 blockade in metastatic melanoma

We evaluated the prognostic value of hypoalbuminemia in context of various biomarkers at baseline, including clinical, genomic, transcriptomic, and blood-based markers, in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy (n = 178). An independent validation cohort (n = 79) was used to validate the performance of hypoalbuminemia compared to serum LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) levels. Pre-treatment hypoalbuminemia emerged as the strongest predictor of poor outcome for both OS (HR = 4.01, 95% CI 2.10–7.67, Cox P = 2.63e−05) and PFS (HR = 3.72, 95% CI 2.06–6.73, Cox P = 1.38e−05) in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, the association of hypoalbuminemia with PFS was independent of serum LDH, IFN-γ signature expression, TMB, age, ECOG PS, treatment line, treatment type (combination or monotherapy), brain and liver metastasis (HR = 2.76, 95% CI 1.24–6.13, Cox P = 0.0131). Our validation cohort confirmed the prognostic power of hypoalbuminemia for OS (HR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.16–3.38; Cox P = 0.0127) and was complementary to serum LDH in analyses for both OS (LDH-adjusted HR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.2–3.72, Cox P = 0.00925) and PFS (LDH-adjusted HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.08–3.38, Cox P = 0.0261). In conclusion, pretreatment hypoalbuminemia was a powerful predictor of outcome in ICI in melanoma and showed remarkable complementarity to previously established biomarkers, including high LDH.</p

BRAF/MEK inhibitor rechallenge in advanced melanoma patients

Background: Effectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking. Methods: Data from all advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAFi(/MEKi) rechallenge were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The authors analyzed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both first treatment and rechallenge. They performed a multivariable logistic regression and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with response and survival. Results: The authors included 468 patients in the largest cohort to date who underwent at least two treatment episodes of BRAFi(/MEKi). Following rechallenge, ORR was 43%, median PFS was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1–5.2), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.2–9.4). Median PFS after rechallenge for patients who discontinued first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.7–4.0) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5–5.9) for patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons. Discontinuing first treatment due to progression and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels greater than two times the upper limit of normal were associated with lower odds of response and worse PFS and OS. Symptomatic brain metastases were associated with worse survival, whereas a longer treatment interval between first treatment and rechallenge was associated with better survival. Responding to the first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment was not associated with response or survival. Conclusions: This study confirms that patients benefit from rechallenge. Elevated LDH levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit from rechallenge. A prolonged treatment interval is associated with more benefit from rechallenge.</p

BRAF/MEK inhibitor rechallenge in advanced melanoma patients

Background: Effectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking. Methods: Data from all advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAFi(/MEKi) rechallenge were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The authors analyzed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both first treatment and rechallenge. They performed a multivariable logistic regression and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with response and survival. Results: The authors included 468 patients in the largest cohort to date who underwent at least two treatment episodes of BRAFi(/MEKi). Following rechallenge, ORR was 43%, median PFS was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1–5.2), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.2–9.4). Median PFS after rechallenge for patients who discontinued first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.7–4.0) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5–5.9) for patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons. Discontinuing first treatment due to progression and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels greater than two times the upper limit of normal were associated with lower odds of response and worse PFS and OS. Symptomatic brain metastases were associated with worse survival, whereas a longer treatment interval between first treatment and rechallenge was associated with better survival. Responding to the first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment was not associated with response or survival. Conclusions: This study confirms that patients benefit from rechallenge. Elevated LDH levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit from rechallenge. A prolonged treatment interval is associated with more benefit from rechallenge.</p

Multi-omic analysis identifies hypoalbuminemia as independent biomarker of poor outcome upon PD-1 blockade in metastatic melanoma

We evaluated the prognostic value of hypoalbuminemia in context of various biomarkers at baseline, including clinical, genomic, transcriptomic, and blood-based markers, in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy (n = 178). An independent validation cohort (n = 79) was used to validate the performance of hypoalbuminemia compared to serum LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) levels. Pre-treatment hypoalbuminemia emerged as the strongest predictor of poor outcome for both OS (HR = 4.01, 95% CI 2.10–7.67, Cox P = 2.63e−05) and PFS (HR = 3.72, 95% CI 2.06–6.73, Cox P = 1.38e−05) in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, the association of hypoalbuminemia with PFS was independent of serum LDH, IFN-γ signature expression, TMB, age, ECOG PS, treatment line, treatment type (combination or monotherapy), brain and liver metastasis (HR = 2.76, 95% CI 1.24–6.13, Cox P = 0.0131). Our validation cohort confirmed the prognostic power of hypoalbuminemia for OS (HR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.16–3.38; Cox P = 0.0127) and was complementary to serum LDH in analyses for both OS (LDH-adjusted HR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.2–3.72, Cox P = 0.00925) and PFS (LDH-adjusted HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.08–3.38, Cox P = 0.0261). In conclusion, pretreatment hypoalbuminemia was a powerful predictor of outcome in ICI in melanoma and showed remarkable complementarity to previously established biomarkers, including high LDH.</p

Healthcare costs of metastatic cutaneous melanoma in the era of immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs

Immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs improved survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. There is, however, a lack of evidence regarding their healthcare costs in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to provide insight into real-world healthcare costs of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Data were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry for patients who were registered between July 2012 and December 2018. Mean total/monthly costs per patient were reported for all patients, patients who did not receive systemic therapy, and patients who received systemic therapy. Furthermore, mean episode/monthly costs per line of therapy and drug were reported for patients who received systemic therapy. Mean total/monthly costs were € 89,240/€ 6809: € 7988/€ 2483 for patients who did not receive systemic therapy (n = 784) and € 105,078/€ 7652 for patients who received systemic therapy (n = 4022). Mean episode/monthly costs were the highest for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (€ 79,675/€ 16,976), ipilimumab monotherapy (€ 79,110/€ 17,252), and dabrafenib plus trametinib (€ 77,053/€ 12,015). Dacarbazine yielded the lowest mean episode/monthly costs (€ 6564/€ 2027). Our study showed that immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs had a large impact on real-world healthcare costs. As new drugs continue entering the treatment landscape for (metastatic) melanoma, it remains crucial to monitor whether the benefits of these drugs outweigh their costs

Is a History of Optimal Staging by Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in the Era Prior to Adjuvant Therapy Associated with Improved Outcome Once Melanoma Patients have Progressed to Advanced Disease?

Introduction: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is important for staging in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. Did having previously undergone SLNB also affect outcomes in patients once they have progressed to metastatic melanoma in the era prior to adjuvant therapy?Methods: Data were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, a prospectively collected, nationwide database of patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma between 2012 and 2018. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) was compared between patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma, previously treated with a wide local excision (WLE) or WLE combined with SLNB as initial treatment of their primary tumor. Cox regression analyses were used to analyze the influence of different variables on MSS.Results: In total, 2581 patients were included, of whom 1412 were treated with a WLE of the primary tumor alone and 1169 in whom this was combined with SLNB. At a median follow-up of 44 months from diagnosis of advanced melanoma, MSS was significantly longer in patients who had previously undergone SLNB {median 23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19–29) vs. 18 months (95% CI 15–20) for patients treated with WLE alone; p = 0.002}. However, multivariate Cox regression did not identify SLNB as an independent favorable prognostic factor for MSS after diagnosis of advanced melanoma.Conclusion: Prior to the availability of adjuvant systemic therapy, once patients have unresectable stage IIIC or IV (advanced) melanoma, there was no difference in disease outcome for patients who were or were not previously staged with SLNB.</p

Corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants for immune-related adverse events and checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness in melanoma

Background: Recent studies indicate an association between immunosuppression for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and impaired survival in patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Whether this is related to corticosteroids or second-line immunosuppressants is unknown. In the largest cohort thus far, we assessed the association of immunosuppressant type and dose with survival in melanoma patients with irAEs. Methods: Patients with advanced melanoma who received immunosuppressants for irAEs induced by first-line anti-PD-1 ± anti-CTLA-4 were included from 18 hospitals worldwide. Associations of cumulative and peak dose corticosteroids and use of second-line immunosuppression with survival from start of immunosuppression were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. Results: Among 606 patients, 404 had anti-PD-1 + anti-CTLA-4-related irAEs and 202 had anti-PD-1-related irAEs. 425 patients (70 %) received corticosteroids only; 181 patients (30 %) additionally received second-line immunosuppressants. Median PFS and OS from starting immunosuppression were 4.5 (95 %CI 3.4–8.1) and 31 (95 %CI 15-not reached) months in patients who received second-line immunosuppressants, and 11 (95 %CI 9.4–14) and 55 (95 %CI 41–not reached) months in patients who did not. High corticosteroid peak dose was associated with worse PFS and OS (HRadj 1.14; 95 %CI 1.01–1.29; HRadj 1.29; 95 %CI 1.12–1.49 for 80vs40mg), while cumulative dose was not. Second-line immunosuppression was associated with worse PFS (HRadj 1.32; 95 %CI 1.02–1.72) and OS (HRadj 1.34; 95 %CI 0.99–1.82) compared with corticosteroids alone. Conclusions: High corticosteroid peak dose and second-line immunosuppressants to treat irAEs are both associated with impaired survival. While immunosuppression is indispensable for treatment of severe irAEs, clinicians should weigh possible detrimental effects on survival against potential disadvantages of undertreatment.</p