1
|
van Not OJ, van den Eertwegh AJ, Haanen JB, Blank CU, Aarts MJ, van Breeschoten J, van den Berkmortel FW, de Groot JWB, Hospers GA, Ismail RK, Kapiteijn E, Bloem M, De Meza MM, Piersma D, van Rijn RS, Stevense-den Boer MA, van der Veldt AA, Vreugdenhil G, Boers-Sonderen MJ, Blokx WA, Wouters MW, Suijkerbuijk KP. Improving survival in advanced melanoma patients: a trend analysis from 2013 to 2021. EClinicalMedicine 2024; 69:102485. [PMID: 38370537 PMCID: PMC10874714 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102485] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Revised: 01/30/2024] [Accepted: 01/30/2024] [Indexed: 02/20/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The prognosis of advanced melanoma patients has significantly improved over the years. We aimed to evaluate the survival per year of diagnosis. Methods All systemically treated patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma from 2013 to 2021 were included from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) were compared between the different years of diagnosis. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between year of diagnosis and OS. Findings For this cohort study, we included 6260 systemically treated advanced melanoma patients. At baseline, there was an increase over the years in age, the percentage of patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2, with brain metastases, and a synchronous diagnosis of primary and unresectable melanoma. Median OS increased from 11.2 months (95% CI 10.0-12.4) for patients diagnosed in 2013 to 32.0 months (95% CI 26.6-36.7) for patients diagnosed in 2019. Median OS was remarkably lower for patients diagnosed in 2020 (26.6 months; 95% CI 23.9-35.1) and 2021 (24.0 months; 95% CI 20.4-NR). Patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019, although this was not significant. The multivariable Cox regression showed a lower hazard of death for the years of diagnosis after 2013. In contrast, patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 had a higher hazard of death compared to patients diagnosed in 2019. Interpretation After a continuous survival improvement for advanced melanoma patients between 2013 and 2019, outcomes of patients diagnosed in 2020 and 2021 seem poorer. This trend of decreased survival remained after correcting for known prognostic factors and previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment, suggesting that it is explained by unmeasured factors, which-considering the timing-could be COVID-19-related. Funding For the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing foundation received a start-up grant from governmental organization The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 836002002). The DMTR is structurally funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche Pharma. Roche Pharma stopped funding in 2019, and Pierre Fabre started funding the DMTR in 2019. For this work, no funding was granted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olivier J. van Not
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden 2333AA, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584CX, the Netherlands
| | - Alfons J.M. van den Eertwegh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam 1081HZ, the Netherlands
| | - John B. Haanen
- Department of Molecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Christian U. Blank
- Department of Molecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066CX, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Maureen J.B. Aarts
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht 6229 HX, the Netherlands
| | - Jesper van Breeschoten
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden 2333AA, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam 1081HZ, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Geke A.P. Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen 9713GZ, the Netherlands
| | - Rawa K. Ismail
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden 2333AA, the Netherlands
| | - Ellen Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden 2333ZA, the Netherlands
| | - Manja Bloem
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden 2333AA, the Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Einthovenweg 20, Leiden 2333ZC, the Netherlands
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Melissa M. De Meza
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden 2333AA, the Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Einthovenweg 20, Leiden 2333ZC, the Netherlands
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Djura Piersma
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Koningsplein 1, Enschede 7512KZ, the Netherlands
| | - Rozemarijn S. van Rijn
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, Leeuwarden 8934AD, the Netherlands
| | | | - Astrid A.M. van der Veldt
- Department of Medical Oncology and Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, ‘s-Gravendijkwal 230, Rotterdam 3015CE, the Netherlands
| | - Gerard Vreugdenhil
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maxima Medical Centre, De Run 4600, Eindhoven 5504DB, the Netherlands
| | - Marye J. Boers-Sonderen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, Nijmegen 6525GA, the Netherlands
| | - Willeke A.M. Blokx
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584CX, Utrecht University, the Netherlands
| | - Michel W.J.M. Wouters
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden 2333AA, the Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Einthovenweg 20, Leiden 2333ZC, the Netherlands
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Karijn P.M. Suijkerbuijk
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584CX, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dane A, van Leeuwen R, Hoedemakers M, van der Kuy H, Sleijfer S. Combatting the rising costs of cancer drugs; interventions from a university hospital's perspective. Front Pharmacol 2023; 14:1264951. [PMID: 37701038 PMCID: PMC10493871 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1264951] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 08/16/2023] [Indexed: 09/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Rapid increase in cost continues to have negative impact on patients' accessibility to life-changing anticancer medications. Moreover, the rising cost does not equate to similar increase in medication effectiveness. We recognise our responsibility as a university hospital to tackle this imbalance and strive to provide high quality, sustainable, affordable and accessible care. An active approach in cost containment of expensive and innovative cancer drugs was adopted in our organisation to safeguard accessibility and improve quality of life for patients. In this article, we described four inverventions: 1) identify right patient and minimise overtreatment, 2) in-house medicine production for selected indications, 3) minimise medicine spillages and 4) effective procurement strategies. We call on other hospitals to take action and, favourably, to collaborate on a European level. Together, we will safeguard the current and future care of our patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aniek Dane
- Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Maaike Hoedemakers
- Department of Market Strategy and Healthcare Financing, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Hugo van der Kuy
- Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Moldovanu S, Miron M, Rusu CG, Biswas KC, Moraru L. Refining skin lesions classification performance using geometric features of superpixels. Sci Rep 2023; 13:11463. [PMID: 37454166 PMCID: PMC10349833 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-38706-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2023] [Accepted: 07/13/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023] Open
Abstract
This paper introduces superpixels to enhance the detection of skin lesions and to discriminate between melanoma and nevi without false negatives, in dermoscopy images. An improved Simple Linear Iterative Clustering (iSLIC) superpixels algorithm for image segmentation in digital image processing is proposed. The local graph cut method to identify the region of interest (i.e., either the nevi or melanoma lesions) has been adopted. The iSLIC algorithm is then exploited to segment sSPs. iSLIC discards all the SPs belonging to image background based on assigned labels and preserves the segmented skin lesions. A shape and geometric feature extraction task is performed for each segmented SP. The extracted features are fed into six machine learning algorithms such as: random forest, support vector machines, AdaBoost, k-nearest neighbor, decision trees (DT), Gaussian Naïve Bayes and three neural networks. These include Pattern recognition neural network, Feed forward neural network, and 1D Convolutional Neural Network for classification. The method is evaluated on the 7-Point MED-NODE and PAD-UFES-20 datasets and the results have been compared to the state-of-art findings. Extensive experiments show that the proposed method outperforms the compared existing methods in terms of accuracy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simona Moldovanu
- Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, Faculty of Automation, Computers, Electrical Engineering and Electronics, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 47 Domneasca Str., 800008, Galati, Romania
- The Modelling and Simulation Laboratory, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 111 Domneasca Str., 800102, Galati, Romania
| | - Mihaela Miron
- Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, Faculty of Automation, Computers, Electrical Engineering and Electronics, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 47 Domneasca Str., 800008, Galati, Romania
| | - Cristinel-Gabriel Rusu
- The Modelling and Simulation Laboratory, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 111 Domneasca Str., 800102, Galati, Romania
- Iorgu Iordan Secondary School, 125, 1 Decembrie 1918 Street, 805300, Tecuci, Romania
| | - Keka C Biswas
- Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama at Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, 35899, USA
| | - Luminita Moraru
- The Modelling and Simulation Laboratory, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 111 Domneasca Str., 800102, Galati, Romania.
- Department of Chemistry, Physics and Environment, Faculty of Sciences and Environment, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 47 Domneasca Street, 800008, Galati, Romania.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Manacorda S, Carmena MDT, Malone C, Linh Le HM, Furness AJS, Larkin J, Schmitt AM. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastasis requiring corticosteroids. Eur J Cancer 2023; 188:98-107. [PMID: 37229837 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.04.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2022] [Revised: 04/17/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
STUDY AIM To investigate the efficacy of PD-1-directed antibody-based therapy in patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) and concurrent treatment with corticosteroids. METHODS This retrospective cohort study included patients with cutaneous melanoma with symptomatic MBM and concurrent treatment with corticosteroids who received PD-1-directed antibody-based treatment at the Royal Marsden Hospital London between 2016 and 2021. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary outcomes were intracranial response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). We used the Kaplan-Meier method to describe survival. RESULTS Between 2016 and 2021, 256 patients presented with metastatic melanoma, of whom 29 were eligible with symptomatic MBM requiring corticosteroids and receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Median age was 54 (interquartile range 44, 66). Median OS was 5.45months (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.89, 29.40), with 21% of patients (95% CI 9%, 47%) alive after 3years. ORR was 28% (8/29) and DOR was 7.85months (95% CI 7.85, not estimably [NE]). Responding patients had a median OS of 56.4months (95% CI 46.03, NE). Elevated lactate dehydrogenase and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS> 2 were associated with poorer outcomes (median OS 29.4 versus 3.12months and 6.44 versus 5.13months), no such association was observed for corticosteroid dose, number of lesions, or line of treatment. CONCLUSION Patients with symptomatic MBM derive only modest benefit from combination immunotherapy treatment. Nevertheless, those with disease response have the potential to derive long-term benefit, justifying ipilimumab plus nivolumab in this group in the absence of other more effective treatment options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simona Manacorda
- Unit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Santa Chiara Hospital, Pisa, Italy; Division of Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Maria De Toro Carmena
- Unit of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain; Division of Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ciara Malone
- Department of Medical Oncology, Addenbrookes Hospital NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK; Division of Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ha Mo Linh Le
- Division of Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Andrew J S Furness
- Division of Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - James Larkin
- Division of Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| | - Andreas M Schmitt
- Division of Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
van Not OJ, Wind TT, Ismail RK, Bhattacharya A, Jalving M, Blank CU, Aarts MJB, van den Berkmortel FWPJ, Boers-Sonderen MJ, van den Eertwegh AJM, de Groot JWB, Haanen JB, Kapiteijn E, Bloem M, Piersma D, van Rijn RS, Stevense-den Boer M, van der Veldt AAM, Vreugdenhil G, Wouters MWJM, Blokx WAM, Suijkerbuijk KPM, Fehrmann RSN, Hospers GAP. A Survival Tree of Advanced Melanoma Patients with Brain Metastases Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15112922. [PMID: 37296885 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15112922] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2023] [Revised: 05/23/2023] [Accepted: 05/24/2023] [Indexed: 06/12/2023] Open
Abstract
The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma that develop brain metastases (BM) remains unpredictable. In this study, we aimed to identify prognostic factors in patients with melanoma BM who are treated with ICIs. Data from advanced melanoma patients with BM treated with ICIs in any line between 2013 and 2020 were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were included from the time of the treatment of BM with ICIs. Survival tree analysis was performed with clinicopathological parameters as potential classifiers and overall survival (OS) as the response variable. In total, 1278 patients were included. Most patients were treated with ipilimumab-nivolumab combination therapy (45%). The survival tree analysis resulted in 31 subgroups. The median OS ranged from 2.7 months to 35.7 months. The strongest clinical parameter associated with survival in advanced melanoma patients with BM was the serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level. Patients with elevated LDH levels and symptomatic BM had the worst prognosis. The clinicopathological classifiers identified in this study can contribute to optimizing clinical studies and can aid doctors in giving an indication of the patients' survival based on their baseline and disease characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olivier J van Not
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Thijs T Wind
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Rawa K Ismail
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Arkajyoti Bhattacharya
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Mathilde Jalving
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Christian U Blank
- Department of Molecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maureen J B Aarts
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marye J Boers-Sonderen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Alfonsus J M van den Eertwegh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Willem B de Groot
- Department of Medical Oncology, Isala Oncology Center, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands
| | - John B Haanen
- Department of Molecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ellen Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Manja Bloem
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Einthovenweg 20, 2333 ZC Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Djura Piersma
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Koningsplein 1, 7512 KZ Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Rozemarijn S van Rijn
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, 8934 AD Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - Marion Stevense-den Boer
- Department of Internal Medicine, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands
| | - Astrid A M van der Veldt
- Department of Medical Oncology and Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Gerard Vreugdenhil
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maxima Medical Centre, De Run 4600, 5504 DB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Michel W J M Wouters
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Einthovenweg 20, 2333 ZC Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Willeke A M Blokx
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rudolf S N Fehrmann
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Geke A P Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
van Breeschoten J, van den Eertwegh AJM, Hilarius DL, Haanen JB, Blank CU, Aarts MJB, van den Berkmortel FWPJ, de Groot JWB, Hospers GAP, Kapiteijn E, Piersma D, van Rijn RS, Stevense-den Boer MA, van der Veldt AAM, Vreugdenhil G, Boers-Sonderen MJ, Manevski D, Suijkerbuijk KPM, Wouters MWJM, de Wreede LC. Population mortality in advanced melanoma patients with and without response and progression; data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Eur J Cancer 2023; 182:132-143. [PMID: 36773402 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2022] [Revised: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 01/05/2023] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION When analysing patient survival, one is often interested in cause of death. Little is known about the presence of population mortality in advanced melanoma patients. The aim of this study was to assess population mortality after different response states in advanced melanoma patients in the Netherlands, and analyse the contribution of disease and population mortality for different age groups. METHODS We selected patients diagnosed between 2013 and 2019 with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. A multi-state model with response states integrating population mortality was fitted. One-year landmark analyses were performed to assess outcomes after each response state. RESULTS Overall, 5119 patients were selected. Five-year probabilities of melanoma-related mortality in patients alive in complete response at one year after diagnosis increased with age, and was 17.2% (95% confidence interval: 13.0-21.4) for patients aged <65 years and 28.7% (95% confidence interval: 24.3-33.1) in patients aged ≥80 years. Population mortality only played a large role for older patients (75 years and above) alive at 1 year after diagnosis with a partial or complete response. CONCLUSION 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesper van Breeschoten
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden, 2333AA, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1118, Amsterdam, 1081HZ, the Netherlands
| | - Alfons J M van den Eertwegh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1118, Amsterdam, 1081HZ, the Netherlands
| | - Doranne L Hilarius
- Department of Pharmacy, Rode Kruis Ziekenhuis, Vondellaan 13, Beverwijk, 1942LE, the Netherlands
| | - John B Haanen
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Christian U Blank
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066CX, the Netherlands; Division of Molecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Maureen J B Aarts
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Geke A P Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, 9713GZ, the Netherlands
| | - Ellen Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333ZA, the Netherlands
| | - Djura Piersma
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Koningsplein 1, Enschede, 7512KZ, the Netherlands
| | - Rozemarijn S van Rijn
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, Leeuwarden, 8934AD, the Netherlands
| | | | - Astrid A M van der Veldt
- Department of Medical Oncology and Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, Rotterdam, 3015CE, the Netherlands
| | - Gerard Vreugdenhil
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maxima Medical Centre, De Run 4600, Eindhoven, 5504DB, the Netherlands
| | - Marye J Boers-Sonderen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, Nijmegen, 6525GA, the Netherlands
| | - Damjan Manevski
- Institute for Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584CX, the Netherlands
| | - Michel W J M Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden, 2333AA, the Netherlands; Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Einthovenweg 20, Leiden, 2333ZC, the Netherlands; Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Liesbeth C de Wreede
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Einthovenweg 20, Leiden, 2333ZC, the Netherlands; DKMS Clinical Trials Unit, Dresden, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ab Rahman AS, Strother RM, Paddison J. New Zealand national retrospective cohort study of survival outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2023; 19:179-186. [PMID: 35686690 DOI: 10.1111/ajco.13801] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2021] [Revised: 03/27/2022] [Accepted: 05/08/2022] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have increased overall survival (OS) in metastatic melanoma in all clinical trials to date. However, pivotal trial populations were not representative of the real-world population in New Zealand. Real-world treatment effectiveness studies help evaluate the value of public pharmaceutical expenditure. AIM To determine the survival outcomes of New Zealand patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab. METHODS This is a national retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma who received publicly funded immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) from 2017 to 2019 were included. Individual patient data were extracted from national administrative databases. The primary endpoint was OS, and secondary endpoints included OS by age, duration of treatment, posttreatment survival, and 30-day mortality from last pharmaceutical claim. RESULTS Five hundred ninety-seven patients were included, with a median follow-up of 25 months. One-year OS was 72%, the 2-year OS estimate was 60%, and median OS not reached. Survival did not differ by dichotomized age (≥70 vs. <70 year old), hazard ratio (HR) .94 (95% confidence interval (CI): .72-1.22; p = .62). Median duration of treatment was 9.0 months (95% CI: 7.9-10.1). Median post-treatment survival for the subgroup who had ceased treatment was 12.0 months (95% CI: 9.0-14.0). For the sample as a whole, the estimated 30-day mortality from last pharmaceutical claim was 15.7%. CONCLUSION OS in our New Zealand real-world population is comparable to pivotal clinical trials and real-world data (RWD) from other countries. These findings support the achievement of health gains from use of ICI in advanced unresectable and metastatic melanoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmad Sufian Ab Rahman
- Christchurch Medical Oncology Department, Christchurch, New Zealand.,Cancer CRI Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Robert Matthew Strother
- Christchurch Medical Oncology Department, Christchurch, New Zealand.,Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Johanna Paddison
- Christchurch Medical Oncology Department, Christchurch, New Zealand.,Timaru Hospital, South Canterbury District Health Board, Timaru, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gorry C, McCullagh L, O'Donnell H, Barrett S, Schmitz S, Barry M, Curtin K, Beausang E, Barry R, Coyne I. Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 1:CD012974. [PMID: 36648215 PMCID: PMC9844053 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012974.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Gorry
- National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Laura McCullagh
- National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Helen O'Donnell
- Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Sarah Barrett
- Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, Trinity St James's Cancer Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Susanne Schmitz
- Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Michael Barry
- Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Kay Curtin
- Melanoma Support Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Eamon Beausang
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Rupert Barry
- Department of Dermatology, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Imelda Coyne
- School of Nursing & Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ismail RK, Suijkerbuijk KP, de Boer A, van Dartel M, Hilarius DL, Pasmooij A, van Zeijl MC, Aarts MJ, van den Berkmortel FW, Blank CU, Boers-Sonderen MJ, de Groot JW, Haanen JB, Hospers GA, Kapiteijn E, Piersma D, van Rijn RS, van der Veldt AA, Vreugdenhil A, Westgeest H, van den Eertwegh AJ, Wouters MW. Long-term survival of patients with advanced melanoma treated with BRAF-MEK inhibitors. Melanoma Res 2022; 32:460-468. [PMID: 35703270 PMCID: PMC9612708 DOI: 10.1097/cmr.0000000000000832] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2022] [Accepted: 04/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Recent results of patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors in clinical trials showed 5-year survival in one-third of patients with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 2 years. This study aimed to investigate these patients' real-world survival and identify the characteristics of long-term survivors. The study population consisted of patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma with a BRAF-V600 mutated tumor who were treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors between 2013 and 2017. Long-term survival was defined as a minimum OS of 2 years from start therapy. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) of real-world patients ( n = 435) were respectively 8.0 (95% CI, 6.8-9.4) and 11.7 (95% CI, 10.3-13.5) months. Two-year survival was reached by 28% of the patients, 22% reached 3-year survival and 19% reached 4-year survival. Real-world patients often had brain metastases (41%), stage IV M1c disease (87%), ECOG PS ≥2 (21%), ≥3 organ sites (62%) and elevated LDH of ≥250 U/I (49%). Trial-eligible real-world patients had an mOS of 17.9 months. Patients surviving more than 2 years ( n = 116) more often had an ECOG PS ≤1 (83%), normal LDH (60%), no brain metastases (60%), no liver metastases (63%) and <3 organ sites (60%). Long-term survival of real-world patients treated with first-line BRAF-MEK inhibitors is significantly lower than that of trial patients, which is probably explained by poorer baseline characteristics of patients treated in daily practice. Long-term survivors generally had more favorable characteristics with regard to age, LDH level and metastatic sites, compared to patients not reaching long-term survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rawa K. Ismail
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht
- Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht
| | | | - Anthonius de Boer
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht
- Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht
| | | | | | | | | | - Maureen J.B. Aarts
- Department of Medical Oncology, Grow School for Oncology and Developmental Biology Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht
| | | | - Christian U. Blank
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam
| | | | | | - John B.A.G. Haanen
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam
| | - Geke A.P. Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen
| | - Ellen Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden
| | - Djura Piersma
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede
| | | | | | - Art Vreugdenhil
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maxima Medical Centre, Eindhoven
| | | | | | - Michel W.J.M. Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan, Amsterdam
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
The Analysis of Trends in Survival for Patients with Melanoma Brain Metastases with Introduction of Novel Therapeutic Options before the Era of Combined Immunotherapy-Multicenter Italian-Polish Report. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14235763. [PMID: 36497248 PMCID: PMC9737166 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14235763] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Revised: 11/17/2022] [Accepted: 11/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Stage IV melanoma patients develop melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in 50% of cases. Their prognosis is improving, and its understanding outside the context of clinical trials is relevant. We have retrospectively analyzed the clinical data, course of treatment, and outcomes of 531 subsequent stage IV melanoma patients with BM treated in five reference Italian and Polish melanoma centers between 2014 and 2021. Patients with MBM after 2017 had a better prognosis, with a significantly improved median of overall survival (OS) after 2017 in the worst mol-GPA prognostic groups (mol-GPA ≤ 2): a median OS >6 months and HR 0.76 vs. those treated before 2017 (CI: 0.60−0.97, p = 0.027). In our prognostic model, mol-GPA was highly predictive for survival, and symptoms without steroid use did not have prognostic significance. Local therapy significantly improved survival regardless of the year of diagnosis (treated before or after 2017), with median survival >12 months. Systemic therapy improved outcomes when it was combined with local therapy. Local surgery was associated with improved OS regardless of the timing related to treatment start (i.e., before or after 30 days from MBM diagnosis). Local and systemic treatment significantly prolong survival for the poorest mol-GPA prognosis. Use of modern treatment modalities is justified in all mol-GPA prognostic groups.
Collapse
|
11
|
van Laar SA, Kapiteijn E, Gombert-Handoko KB, Guchelaar HJ, Zwaveling J. Application of Electronic Health Record Text Mining: Real-World Tolerability, Safety, and Efficacy of Adjuvant Melanoma Treatments. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:5426. [PMID: 36358844 PMCID: PMC9657798 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14215426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Revised: 10/31/2022] [Accepted: 11/02/2022] [Indexed: 08/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Nivolumab (N), pembrolizumab (P), and dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T) have been registered as adjuvant treatments for resected stage III and IV melanoma since 2018. Electronic health records (EHRs) are a real-world data source that can be used to review treatments in clinical practice. In this study, we applied EHR text-mining software to evaluate the real-world tolerability, safety, and efficacy of adjuvant melanoma treatments. Methods: Adult melanoma patients receiving adjuvant treatment between January 2019 and October 2021 at the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, were included. CTcue text-mining software (v3.1.0, CTcue B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) was used to construct rule-based queries and perform context analysis for patient inclusion and data collection from structured and unstructured EHR data. Results: In total, 122 patients were included: 54 patients treated with nivolumab, 48 with pembrolizumab, and 20 with D + T. Significantly more patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity on D + T (N: 16%, P: 6%, D + T: 40%), and X2 (6, n = 122) = 14.6 and p = 0.024. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) mainly showed immune-related treatment-limiting adverse events (AEs), and chronic thyroid-related AE occurred frequently (hyperthyroidism: N: 15%, P: 13%, hypothyroidism: N: 20%, P: 19%). Treatment-limiting toxicity from D + T was primarily a combination of reversible AEs, including pyrexia and fatigue. The 1-year recurrence-free survival was 70.3% after nivolumab, 72.4% after pembrolizumab, and 83.0% after D + T. Conclusions: Text-mining EHR is a valuable method to collect real-world data to evaluate adjuvant melanoma treatments. ICIs were better tolerated than D + T, in line with RCT results. For BRAF+ patients, physicians must weigh the higher risk of reversible treatment-limiting AEs of D + T against the risk of long-term immune-related AEs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sylvia A. van Laar
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Ellen Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Kim B. Gombert-Handoko
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Henk-Jan Guchelaar
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Juliette Zwaveling
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
van Breeschoten J, Ismail RK, Wouters MW, Hilarius DL, de Wreede LC, Haanen JB, Blank CU, Aarts MJ, van den Berkmortel FW, de Groot JWB, Hospers GA, Kapiteijn E, Piersma D, van Rijn RS, Stevense-den Boer MA, van der Veldt AA, Vreugdenhil G, Boers-Sonderen MJ, Suijkerbuijk KP, van den Eertwegh AJ. End-of-Life Use of Systemic Therapy in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: A Nationwide Cohort Study. JCO Oncol Pract 2022; 18:e1611-e1620. [DOI: 10.1200/op.22.00061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE: The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies improved the overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma. It is not known how often these costly treatments with potential serious side effects are ineffectively applied in the last phase of life. This study aimed to investigate the start of a new systemic therapy within 45 and 90 days of death in Dutch patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: We selected patients who were diagnosed with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, and died between 2013 and 2019. Primary outcome was the probability of starting a new systemic therapy 45 and 90 days before death. Secondary outcomes were type of systemic therapy started, grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), and the total costs of systemic therapies. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2019, 3,797 patients with unresectable IIIC or stage IV melanoma were entered in the registry and died. The percentage of patients receiving a new systemic therapy within 45 and 90 days before death was significantly different between Dutch melanoma centers (varying from 6% to 23% and 20% to 46%, respectively). Thirteen percent of patients (n = 146) developed grade 3/4 AEs in the last period before death. The majority of patients with an AE required hospital admission (n = 102, 69.6%). Mean total costs of systemic therapy per cohort year of the patients who received a new systemic therapy within 90 days before death were 2.3%-2.8% of the total costs spent on melanoma therapies. CONCLUSION: The minority of Dutch patients with metastatic melanoma started a new systemic therapy in the last phase of life. However, the percentages varied between Dutch melanoma centers. Financial impact of these therapies in the last phase of life is relatively small.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesper van Breeschoten
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Rawa K. Ismail
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, the Netherlands
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Michel W.J.M. Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, the Netherlands
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | | | - Liesbeth C. de Wreede
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - John B. Haanen
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Christian U. Blank
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maureen J.B. Aarts
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology. Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Geke A.P. Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Ellen Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Djura Piersma
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Gerard Vreugdenhil
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maxima Medical Center, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Marye J. Boers-Sonderen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | | - Alfons J.M. van den Eertwegh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ismail RK, van Breeschoten J, van der Flier S, van Loosen C, Pasmooij AMG, van Dartel M, van den Eertwegh A, de Boer A, Wouters M, Hilarius D. Medication Use and Clinical Outcomes by the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing Medicines Program: Quantitative Analysis. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24:e33446. [PMID: 35737449 PMCID: PMC9264125 DOI: 10.2196/33446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Revised: 04/06/2022] [Accepted: 04/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rawa Kamaran Ismail
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Alfons van den Eertwegh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Anthonius de Boer
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Michel Wouters
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Sanjida S, Betz-Stablein B, Atkinson V, Janda M, Barsoum R, Edwards HA, Chiu F, Tran MC, Soyer HP, Schaider H. In-Depth Characterisation of Real-World Advanced Melanoma Patients Receiving Immunotherapies and/or Targeted Therapies: A Case Series. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14112801. [PMID: 35681781 PMCID: PMC9179437 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14112801] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2022] [Accepted: 06/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Immunotherapies and targeted therapies have shown significant benefits for melanoma survival in the clinical trial setting. Much less is known about the characteristics and associated outcomes of those receiving such therapies in real-world settings. This study describes the characteristics of patients with advanced melanoma receiving immuno- and/or targeted therapies in a real-world setting. This prospective cohort study enrolled participants aged >18 years, diagnosed with advanced melanoma and currently undergoing immuno- and/or targeted therapies outside a clinical trial for follow-up with three-dimensional (3D) total-body imaging. Participants (n = 41) had a mean age of 62 years (range 29−86), 26 (63%) were male and the majority (n = 26, 63%) had ≥2 comorbidities. After a median of 39 months (range 1−52) follow-up, 59% (n = 24/41) of participants were alive. Despite multiple co-morbidities, the survival of participants with advanced melanoma treated using immuno- and/or targeted therapies was similar or better in our real-world setting compared to those treated in clinical trials using similar therapies. Larger studies powered to evaluate phenotypic and socio-economic characteristics, as well as specific comorbidities associated with survival in a real-world setting, are required to help determine those who will most benefit from immuno- and/or targeted therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saira Sanjida
- Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (S.S.); (M.J.)
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (R.B.); (H.A.E.); (F.C.); (M.C.T.); (H.P.S.); (H.S.)
| | - Brigid Betz-Stablein
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (R.B.); (H.A.E.); (F.C.); (M.C.T.); (H.P.S.); (H.S.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +61-7-34437399
| | - Victoria Atkinson
- Cancer Care Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia;
| | - Monika Janda
- Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (S.S.); (M.J.)
| | - Ramez Barsoum
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (R.B.); (H.A.E.); (F.C.); (M.C.T.); (H.P.S.); (H.S.)
| | - Harrison Aljian Edwards
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (R.B.); (H.A.E.); (F.C.); (M.C.T.); (H.P.S.); (H.S.)
| | - Frank Chiu
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (R.B.); (H.A.E.); (F.C.); (M.C.T.); (H.P.S.); (H.S.)
| | - My Co Tran
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (R.B.); (H.A.E.); (F.C.); (M.C.T.); (H.P.S.); (H.S.)
| | - H Peter Soyer
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (R.B.); (H.A.E.); (F.C.); (M.C.T.); (H.P.S.); (H.S.)
- Dermatology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia
| | - Helmut Schaider
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia; (R.B.); (H.A.E.); (F.C.); (M.C.T.); (H.P.S.); (H.S.)
- Dermatology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
|
16
|
Signorovitch J, Moshyk A, Zhao J, Le TK, Burns L, Gooden K, Hamilton M. Overall survival in the real-world and clinical trials: a case study validating external controls in advanced melanoma. Future Oncol 2022; 18:1321-1331. [PMID: 35048743 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-1054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Aims: We assessed the suitability of real-world data (RWD) as an external control for analysis of overall survival (OS) compared with clinical trial data (CTD) in advanced melanoma. Methods: OS among adults receiving ipilimumab for advanced melanoma was compared between trials (CTD group) and the Flatiron Health database (RWD group) using Cox models. Adjusted analyses accounted for differences in baseline factors; missing data were addressed through multiple imputation. Results: After adjusting for baseline factors and accounting for missingness, OS was similar in the CTD (n = 241) versus RWD groups (n = 816) (hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.75-1.26). Conclusion: Flatiron Health data is suitable to construct external control groups for OS in advanced melanoma trials after adjusting for baseline factors and missing data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Signorovitch
- Analysis Group, Inc., 111 Huntington Ave, Floor 14, Boston, MA 02199, USA
| | - Andriy Moshyk
- Bristol-Myers Squibb, 3401 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08540, USA
| | - Jing Zhao
- Analysis Group, Inc., 111 Huntington Ave, Floor 14, Boston, MA 02199, USA
| | - Trong Kim Le
- Bristol-Myers Squibb, 3401 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08540, USA
| | - Leah Burns
- Bristol-Myers Squibb, 3401 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08540, USA
| | - Kyna Gooden
- Bristol-Myers Squibb, 3401 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08540, USA
| | - Melissa Hamilton
- Bristol-Myers Squibb, 3401 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08540, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Newcomer K, Robbins KJ, Perone J, Hinojosa FL, Chen D, Jones S, Kaufman CK, Weiser R, Fields RC, Tyler DS. Malignant melanoma: evolving practice management in an era of increasingly effective systemic therapies. Curr Probl Surg 2022; 59:101030. [PMID: 35033317 PMCID: PMC9798450 DOI: 10.1016/j.cpsurg.2021.101030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Ken Newcomer
- Department of Surgery, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
| | | | - Jennifer Perone
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX
| | | | - David Chen
- e. Department of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
| | - Susan Jones
- f. Department of Pediatrics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
| | | | - Roi Weiser
- University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX
| | - Ryan C Fields
- Department of Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
| | - Douglas S Tyler
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Schweighofer-Zwink G, Manafi-Farid R, Kölblinger P, Hehenwarter L, Harsini S, Pirich C, Beheshti M. Prognostic value of 2-[ 18F]FDG PET-CT in metastatic melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy. Eur J Radiol 2021; 146:110107. [PMID: 34922117 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2021] [Revised: 11/10/2021] [Accepted: 12/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The 2-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (2-[18F]FDG PET/CT) is used for the evaluation of response to immunotherapy in malignant melanoma. Here, we evaluated the prognostic value of various metabolic parameters in baseline and different time points after therapy. METHODS In this retrospective study, 51 metastatic melanoma patients, who had received immunotherapy, were included. Patients with baseline and two follow-up 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT studies (3 and 6 months after therapy) were selected. Multiple metabolic parameters and tumor-to-background ratios (TBRs) were extracted and correlated with OS. RESULTS The 3- and 5-year OS rates were 49% and 43.1%, respectively. On baseline 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT, only standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass (SULmax and SULpeak), as well as most of the TBRs were predictive for 3- and 5-year OS rates. Metabolic tumor volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and most of the TBRs were predictive on both follow-up studies. Also, the changes in values of MTV, TLG and most of the TBRs from the baseline to the 3-month and 6- month follow-up studies were prognostic. On multivariate analysis, all of the most predictive parameters for OS were derived from the 3-month follow-up study. The ratio of TBRmean to the mediastinum was the best factor (cutoff value of 2.15, sensitivity of 88.5% and specificity of 68.0% for 3-year survival). CONCLUSION Metabolic parameters derived from 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT are valuable tools for the prediction of 3- and 5-year OS rates in metastatic melanoma patients undergoing immunotherapy. The 3-month follow-up 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT is of particular importance in this regard.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gregor Schweighofer-Zwink
- Division of Molecular Imaging and Theranostics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
| | - Reyhaneh Manafi-Farid
- Research Center for Nuclear Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical sciences, 1411713135 Tehran, Iran
| | - Peter Kölblinger
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
| | - Lukas Hehenwarter
- Division of Molecular Imaging and Theranostics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
| | - Sara Harsini
- Research Center for Nuclear Medicine, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical sciences, 1411713135 Tehran, Iran; Association of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (ANMMI), Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), 1419733151 Tehran, Iran
| | - Christian Pirich
- Division of Molecular Imaging and Theranostics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
| | - Mohsen Beheshti
- Division of Molecular Imaging and Theranostics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
van Breeschoten J, van den Eertwegh AJM, de Wreede LC, Hilarius DL, van Zwet EW, Haanen JB, Blank CU, Aarts MJB, van den Berkmortel FWPJ, de Groot JWB, Hospers GAP, Kapiteijn E, Piersma D, van Rijn RS, Stevense-den Boer MAM, van der Veldt AAM, Vreugdenhil G, Boers-Sonderen MJ, Suijkerbuijk KPM, Wouters MWJM. Hospital Variation in Cancer Treatments and Survival OutComes of Advanced Melanoma Patients: Nationwide Quality Assurance in The Netherlands. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:5077. [PMID: 34680228 PMCID: PMC8533953 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13205077] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2021] [Revised: 10/08/2021] [Accepted: 10/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesper van Breeschoten
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands;
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Alfonsus J. M. van den Eertwegh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Liesbeth C. de Wreede
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Einthovenweg 20, 2333 ZC Leiden, The Netherlands; (L.C.d.W.); (E.W.v.Z.)
| | - Doranne L. Hilarius
- Department of Pharmacy, Rode Kruis Ziekenhuis, Vondellaan 13, 1942 LE Beverwijk, The Netherlands;
| | - Erik W. van Zwet
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Einthovenweg 20, 2333 ZC Leiden, The Netherlands; (L.C.d.W.); (E.W.v.Z.)
| | - John B. Haanen
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (J.B.H.); (C.U.B.)
| | - Christian U. Blank
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (J.B.H.); (C.U.B.)
- Division of Molecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maureen J. B. Aarts
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands;
| | | | | | - Geke A. P. Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands;
| | - Ellen Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands;
| | - Djura Piersma
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Koningsplein 1, 7512 KZ Enschede, The Netherlands;
| | - Rozemarijn S. van Rijn
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, 8934 AD Leeuwarden, The Netherlands;
| | | | - Astrid A. M. van der Veldt
- Department of Medical Oncology and Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, ‘s-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Gerard Vreugdenhil
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maxima Medical Centre, De Run 4600, 5504 DB Eindhoven, The Netherlands;
| | - Marye J. Boers-Sonderen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
| | - Karijn P. M. Suijkerbuijk
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands;
| | - Michel W. J. M. Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands;
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Einthovenweg 20, 2333 ZC Leiden, The Netherlands; (L.C.d.W.); (E.W.v.Z.)
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
de Meza MM, Ismail RK, Rauwerdink D, van Not OJ, van Breeschoten J, Blokx WAM, de Boer A, van Dartel M, Hilarius DL, Ellebaek E, Bonenkamp HJ, Blank CU, Aarts MJB, van Akkooi ACJ, van den Berkmortel FWPJ, Boers-Sonderen MJ, de Groot JWB, Haanen JB, Hospers GAP, Kapiteijn EW, Piersma D, van Rijn RS, van der Veldt AAM, Vreugdenhil A, Westgeest HM, van den Eertwegh AJM, Suijkerbuijk KPM, Wouters MWJM. Adjuvant treatment for melanoma in clinical practice - Trial versus reality. Eur J Cancer 2021; 158:234-245. [PMID: 34600790 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.08.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2021] [Revised: 08/16/2021] [Accepted: 08/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa M de Meza
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333ZA, the Netherlands; Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066CX, the Netherlands; Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden, 2333AA, the Netherlands.
| | - Rawa K Ismail
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden, 2333AA, the Netherlands; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Heidelberglaan 8, Utrecht, 3584CS, the Netherlands
| | - Daan Rauwerdink
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333ZA, the Netherlands
| | - Olivier J van Not
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden, 2333AA, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584CX, the Netherlands
| | - Jesper van Breeschoten
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden, 2333AA, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081HZ, the Netherlands
| | - Willeke A M Blokx
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584CX, the Netherlands
| | - Anthonius de Boer
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Heidelberglaan 8, Utrecht, 3584CS, the Netherlands; Medicines Evaluation Board, Graadt van Roggenweg 500, Utrecht, 3531AH, the Netherlands
| | - Maaike van Dartel
- Medicines Evaluation Board, Graadt van Roggenweg 500, Utrecht, 3531AH, the Netherlands
| | - Doranne L Hilarius
- Department of Pharmacy, Rode Kruis Ziekenhuis, Vondellaan 13, Beverwijk, 1942LE, the Netherlands
| | - Eva Ellebaek
- National Center for Cancer Immune Therapy, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, 2730, Denmark
| | - Han J Bonenkamp
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, Nijmegen, 6525GA, the Netherlands
| | - Christian U Blank
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Maureen J B Aarts
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, the Netherlands
| | - Alexander C J van Akkooi
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Heidelberglaan 8, Utrecht, 3584CS, the Netherlands
| | | | - Marye J Boers-Sonderen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, Nijmegen, 6525GA, the Netherlands
| | | | - John B Haanen
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066CX, the Netherlands
| | - Geke A P Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, 9713GZ, the Netherlands
| | - Ellen W Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333ZA, the Netherlands
| | - Djura Piersma
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Koningsplein 1, Enschede, 7512KZ, the Netherlands
| | - Roos S van Rijn
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, Leeuwarden, 8934AD, the Netherlands
| | - Astrid A M van der Veldt
- Departments of Medical Oncology and Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, Rotterdam, 3015CE, the Netherlands
| | - Art Vreugdenhil
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maxima Medical Center, De Run 4600, Eindhoven 5504DB, the Netherlands
| | - Hans M Westgeest
- Department of Internal Medicine, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, Breda 4818CK, the Netherlands
| | - Alfons J M van den Eertwegh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118, Amsterdam, 1081HZ, the Netherlands
| | - Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584CX, the Netherlands
| | - Michel W J M Wouters
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333ZA, the Netherlands; Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam, 1066CX, the Netherlands; Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, Leiden, 2333AA, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
van der Kooij MK, Dekkers OM, Aarts MJB, van den Berkmortel FWPJ, Boers-Sonderen MJ, de Groot JWB, Hospers GAP, Piersma D, van Rijn RS, Suijkerbuijk KPM, Westgeest HM, van der Veldt AAM, Vreugdenhil G, Wilgenhof S, Wouters MWJM, Haanen JBAG, van den Eertwegh AJM, Kapiteijn E. Sex-Based Differences in Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibition and Targeted Therapy for Advanced Melanoma: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13184639. [PMID: 34572865 PMCID: PMC8465427 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13184639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2021] [Revised: 09/03/2021] [Accepted: 09/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Melanoma is a malignant form of skin cancer. The overall survival of patients with advanced stages of disease were initially low. Fortunately, in recent years systemic treatment with immunotherapy has prolonged survival. We set out to answer the question whether men and women with advanced melanoma differ in prognostic factors, tumor-response to immunotherapy, and treatment-related adverse events. All patients in the Netherlands were registered between July 2013 and July 2018. We showed that although clinical and tumor characteristics differ, the safety profile of immunotherapy is comparable. Furthermore, overall, a 10% survival advantage for women was seen. Following immunotherapy there was no survival difference. Abstract Recent meta-analyses show conflicting data on sex-dependent benefit following systemic treatment for advanced melanoma patients. We examined the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (July 2013–July 2018), assessing sex-dependent differences in advanced melanoma patients (stage IIIC/IV) with respect to clinical characteristics, mutational profiles, treatments initiated, grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs), treatment responses, and mortality. We included 3985 patients, 2363 men (59%) and showed that although men and women with advanced melanoma differ in clinical and tumor characteristics, the safety profile of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) is comparable. The data suggest a 10% survival advantage for women, mainly seen in patients ≥60 years of age and patients with BRAF V600 mutant melanoma. Following ICI there was no survival difference.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Monique K. van der Kooij
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands;
| | - Olaf M. Dekkers
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands;
| | - Maureen J. B. Aarts
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P. Debyelaan 25, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands;
| | | | - Marye J. Boers-Sonderen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
| | | | - Geke A. P. Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands;
| | - Djura Piersma
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Koningsplein 1, 7512 KZ Enschede, The Netherlands;
| | - Rozemarijn S. van Rijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg 2, 8934 AD Leeuwarden, The Netherlands;
| | - Karijn P. M. Suijkerbuijk
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands;
| | - Hans M. Westgeest
- Department of Internal Medicine, Amphia Ziekenhuis, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands;
| | - Astrid A. M. van der Veldt
- Departments of Medical Oncology and Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Gerard Vreugdenhil
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maxima Medical Center, de Run 4600, 5500 MB Veldhoven, The Netherlands;
| | - Sofie Wilgenhof
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (S.W.); (J.B.A.G.H.)
| | - Michel W. J. M. Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands;
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - John B. A. G. Haanen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (S.W.); (J.B.A.G.H.)
| | - Alfonsus J. M. van den Eertwegh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Ellen Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands;
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +31-71-5263486
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Sadetsky N, Chuo CY, Davidoff AJ. Development and evaluation of a proxy for baseline ECOG PS in advanced non-small cell lung cancer, bladder cancer, and melanoma: An electronic health record study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2021; 30:1233-1241. [PMID: 34145696 DOI: 10.1002/pds.5309] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2020] [Revised: 03/31/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) is an important predictor for receipt of treatment and overall survival (OS) but is often unreported in routine care. We developed a proxy for baseline ECOG PS using electronic health records (EHRs). METHODS We analyzed patients who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), advanced bladder cancer (aBCa), and advanced melanoma (aMEL) between 2011 and 2018 and had a baseline (reported between diagnosis and treatment) ECOG PS in a real-world database. We used stepwise multivariable logistic regression to model associations between baseline ECOG PS good (<2) versus poor (≥2) and sociodemographic, clinical, and laboratory measures in each cancer type. Predictive accuracy of classifying ECOG PS was assessed. We tested the association between OS and observed and predicted ECOG PS. RESULTS In total, 20 697 aNSCLC patients, 2627 aBCa patients, and 2558 aMEL patients constituted the study population. Percentage of patients with poor ECOG PS ranged from 15.3% (aMEL) to 28.5% (aNSCLC). Poor ECOG PS was associated with more comorbid conditions, older age, lower body mass index, metastases, and abnormal laboratory indicators. Overall prediction accuracy using a 0.50 cutpoint was 73.3% for NSCLC, 73.8% for aBCa, and 85.4% for aMEL. The association of OS with ECOG PS was consistent between the observed and proxy measures. CONCLUSIONS In the EHR-derived data, clinical, sociodemographic, and laboratory information were used to assign ECOG PS and enhance the use of real-world data in outcome studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ching-Yi Chuo
- Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Amy J Davidoff
- Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Ellebaek E, Svane IM, Schmidt H, Haslund CA, Donia M, Hoejberg L, Ruhlmann C, Guldbrandt LM, Køhler UH, Bastholt L. The Danish metastatic melanoma database (DAMMED): A nation-wide platform for quality assurance and research in real-world data on medical therapy in Danish melanoma patients. Cancer Epidemiol 2021; 73:101943. [PMID: 33962356 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2021.101943] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2021] [Revised: 04/18/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical trials enroll patients with specific diseases based on certain pre-defined eligibility criteria. Disease registries are crucial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new expensive oncology medicines in broad non-trial patient populations. METHODS We provide detailed information on the structure, including variables, and the scientific results from a nation-wide Danish database covering advanced melanoma, illustrating the importance of continuous real-world data registration. Disease status and treatment-related information on all patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition stage III or IV melanoma candidates to medical treatment in Denmark are prospectively registered in the Danish Metastatic Melanoma Database (DAMMED). RESULTS By January 1st, 2021, DAMMED includes 4156 patients and 7420 treatment regimens. Response rates and survival data from published randomized clinical trial data are compared with real-world efficacy data from DAMMED and presented. Overall, nine independent manuscripts highlighting similarities and discrepancies between real-world and clinical trial results are already reported to date. CONCLUSION Nation-wide disease registries take into consideration the complexity of daily clinical practice. We show a concrete example of how disease registries can complement clinical trials' information, improving clinical practice, and support health-related technology assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eva Ellebaek
- Center for Cancer Immune Therapy, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
| | - Inge Marie Svane
- Center for Cancer Immune Therapy, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Henrik Schmidt
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Marco Donia
- Center for Cancer Immune Therapy, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Lise Hoejberg
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | | | | | | | - Lars Bastholt
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Clinical outcome of patients with metastatic melanoma of unknown primary in the era of novel therapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2021; 70:3123-3135. [PMID: 33774697 PMCID: PMC8505371 DOI: 10.1007/s00262-021-02871-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2020] [Accepted: 01/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) is considered different from melanoma of known primary (MKP), and it is unclear whether these patients benefit equally from novel therapies. In the current study, characteristics and overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced and metastatic MUP and MKP were compared in the era of novel therapy. Patients were selected from the prospective nation-wide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR). The following criteria were applied: diagnosis of stage IIIc unresectable or IV cutaneous MKP (cMKP) or MUP between July 2012 and July 2017 and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition and/or targeted therapy. OS was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. The stratified multivariable Cox regression model was used for adjusted analysis. A total of 2706 patients were eligible including 2321 (85.8%) patients with cMKP and 385 (14.2%) with MUP. In comparative analysis, MUP patients more often presented with advanced and metastatic disease at primary diagnosis with poorer performance status, higher LDH, and central nervous system metastases. In crude analysis, median OS of cMKP or MUP patients was 12 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5 – 44) and 14 months (IQR 5 – not reached), respectively (P = 0.278). In adjusted analysis, OS in MUP patients was superior (hazard rate 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.58–0.85; P < 0.001). As compared to patients with advanced and metastatic cMKP, MUP patients have superior survival in adjusted analysis, but usually present with poorer prognostic characteristics. In crude analysis, OS was comparable indicating that patients with MUP benefit at least equally from treatment with novel therapies.
Collapse
|
25
|
Ismail RK, Sikkes NO, Wouters MWJM, Hilarius DL, Pasmooij AMG, van den Eertwegh AJM, Aarts MJB, van den Berkmortel FWPJ, Boers-Sonderen MJ, de Groot JWB, Haanen JBAG, Hospers GAP, Kapiteijn E, Piersma D, van Rijn RS, Suijkerbuijk KPM, Ten Tije BJ, van der Veldt AAM, Vreugdenhil A, van Dartel M, de Boer A. Postapproval trials versus patient registries: comparability of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases. Melanoma Res 2021; 31:58-66. [PMID: 33351553 PMCID: PMC7757745 DOI: 10.1097/cmr.0000000000000707] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2020] [Accepted: 10/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Postapproval trials and patient registries have their pros and cons in the generation of postapproval data. No direct comparison between clinical outcomes of these data sources currently exists for advanced melanoma patients. We aimed to investigate whether a patient registry can complement or even replace postapproval trials. Postapproval single-arm clinical trial data from the Medicines Evaluation Board and real-world data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry were used. The study population consisted of advanced melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with targeted therapies (BRAF- or BRAF-MEK inhibitors) in the first line. A Cox hazard regression model and a propensity score matching (PSM) model were used to compare the two patient populations. Compared to patients treated in postapproval trials (n = 467), real-world patients (n = 602) had significantly higher age, higher ECOG performance status, more often ≥3 organ involvement and more symptomatic brain metastases. Lactate dehydrogenase levels were similar between both groups. The unadjusted median overall survival (mOS) in postapproval clinical trial patients was 8.7 (95% CI, 8.1-10.4) months compared to 7.2 (95% CI, 6.5-7.7) months (P < 0.01) in real-world patients. With the Cox hazard regression model, survival was adjusted for prognostic factors, which led to a statistically insignificant difference in mOS for trial and real-world patients of 8.7 (95% CI, 7.9-10.4) months compared to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.3-7.9) months, respectively. The PSM model resulted in 310 matched patients with similar survival (P = 0.9). Clinical outcomes of both data sources were similar. Registries could be a complementary data source to postapproval clinical trials to establish information on clinical outcomes in specific subpopulations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rawa K Ismail
- Scientific Department, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg, Leiden
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Utrecht, Heidelberglaan
- Medicines Evaluation Board, Graadt van Roggenweg, Utrecht
| | - Nienke O Sikkes
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Utrecht, Heidelberglaan
| | - Michel W J M Wouters
- Scientific Department, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg, Leiden
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan, Amsterdam
| | | | - Anna M G Pasmooij
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan, Amsterdam
| | | | - Maureen J B Aarts
- Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debyelaan, Maastricht
| | | | - Marye J Boers-Sonderen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid, Nijmegen
| | | | - John B A G Haanen
- Department of Medical Oncology and Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan, Amsterdam
| | - Geke A P Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein, Groningen
| | - Ellen Kapiteijn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef, Leiden
| | - Djura Piersma
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Koningsplein, Enschede
| | - Roos S van Rijn
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Henri Dunantweg, Leeuwarden
| | | | - Bert-Jan Ten Tije
- Department of Internal Medicine, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht, Breda
| | - Astrid A M van der Veldt
- Departments of Medical Oncology and Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, 's-Gravendijkwal, Rotterdam
| | - Art Vreugdenhil
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maxima Medical Centre, De Run, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Maaike van Dartel
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan, Amsterdam
| | - Anthonius de Boer
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Utrecht, Heidelberglaan
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan, Amsterdam
| |
Collapse
|