Indirect Treatment Comparison of Nivolumab Versus Observation or Ipilimumab as Adjuvant Therapy in Resected Melanoma Using Pooled Clinical Trial Data

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials.

UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma: a propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison and number needed to treat analysis for recurrence-free survival and overall survival

BACKGROUND

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data for adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo (proxy for routine surveillance) in patients with high-risk, resected melanoma are lacking. This post hoc, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used pooled data from the phase 3 EORTC 18,071 (ipilimumab vs. placebo) and CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs. ipilimumab) trials to assess RFS and OS with nivolumab versus placebo and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) over 4 years.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition) were included. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. RFS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and placebo. OS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus placebo. To adjust for different post-recurrence treatments, the difference in post-recurrence survival between the two ipilimumab arms was added to OS of the placebo arm.

RESULTS

This ITC included 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and placebo, respectively. Following IPTW, nivolumab was associated with improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61) and ipilimumab (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85). RFS NNT was 4.2 for nivolumab versus placebo and 8.9 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab. After post-recurrence survival adjustment, weighted 4-year OS rates were 75.8% for nivolumab and 64.1% for placebo; OS NNT for nivolumab versus placebo was 8.5.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma in this ITC, nivolumab improved RFS versus placebo and ipilimumab, and OS versus placebo after post-recurrence survival adjustment.

Real Check RIO: A Real-World Analysis of Nivolumab in First Line Metastatic Melanoma Assessing Efficacy, Safety and Predictive Factors

We performed a retrospective study on 51 metastatic melanoma patients treated with Nivolumab in first line, at the Regional Institute of Oncology (RIO) Iasi, Romania between April 2017 and December 2019. We studied the efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy on a treatment-naive population. After a median follow-up of 36 months, the median progression free survival (PFS) was 26 months (95% CI, 15-36) and the median overall survival (OS) was 31 months (95% CI, 20.1-41.8). At 12 months after the initiation of immunotherapy, the percentage of patients alive was 70%, and at 24 months 62.5%. The most common adverse events observed were dermatological (23.5%) and grade ≥3 was identified in 4 (6.8%) patients. Multivariate analysis indicated that the presence of liver metastases (HR 4.42; 95% CI: 1.88-10.4, p = 0.001) and a neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio (NLR) were associated with poor survival (HR 3.21; 95% CI: 1.04-9.87, p = 0.04). Although retrospective data on a small group of patients were analyzed, we can conclude that our results in RIO are similar to those described in clinical trials and other real-world studies. Our study highlights the potential usefulness of liver metastases and NLR as novel predictive factors in clinical decision-making.

Adjuvant anti-PD-1 antibody treatment in stage III/IV melanoma: real-world experience and health economic considerations

BACKGROUND

Anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibodies have evolved as a new standard of care in the adjuvant treatment of completely resected melanoma. Real-world data on treatment efficacy and safety as well as cost-effectiveness are still limited.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment outcomes were retrospectively analyzed in a continuous patient cohort receiving adjuvant nivolumab (91 patients) or pembrolizumab (9 patients). Based on the obtained clinical data, a semi-Markov model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 11.5 months, disease recurrence was observed in 39 patients (39 %). The site of first recurrence was locoregional in 17, distant in 19, and combined locoregional and distant in three patients. Twelve-month estimates for recurrence- and distant-metastasis-free survival were 64.8 % and 77.4 %, respectively. Sixteen patients experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, while 22 patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. The base-case Markov model yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 13,330 € per quality-adjusted life year for adjuvant anti-PD-1 antibody treatment compared to a simulated observation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world outcomes of adjuvant anti-PD-1 antibody therapy in completely resected melanoma appear comparable to clinical trial data. Moreover, our data suggests this treatment strategy to be cost-effective according to Austrian health economic standards.

Adjuvant Therapy of High-Risk (Stages IIC-IV) Malignant Melanoma in the Post Interferon-Alpha Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Multiple agents are approved in the adjuvant setting of completely resected high-risk (stages IIC–IV) malignant melanoma. Subgroups may benefit differently depending on the agent used. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of available options in the post interferon era across following subgroups: patient age, stage, ulceration status, lymph node involvement, BRAF status.

Methods

The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched without restriction in year of publication in June and September 2020. Data were extracted according to the PRISMA Guidelines from two authors independently and were pooled according to the random-effects model. The predefined primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Post-data extraction it was noted that one trial (BRIM8) reported disease-free survival which was defined in the exact same way as RFS.

Results

Five prospective randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The drug regimens included ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, vemurafenib, and dabrafenib/trametinib. Adjuvant treatment was associated with a higher RFS than placebo (HR 0.57; 95% CI= 0.45–0.71). Nivolumab/ipilimumab in stage IV malignant melanoma was associated with the highest RFS benefit (HR 0.23; 97.5% CI= 0.12–0.45), followed by dabrafenib/trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma (HR 0.49; 95% CI= 0.40–0.59). The presence of a BRAF mutation was associated with higher RFS rates (HR 0.30; 95% CI= 0.11–0.78) compared to the wildtype group (HR 0.60; 95% CI= 0.44–0.81). Patient age did not influence outcomes (≥65: HR 0.50; 95% CI= 0.36–0.70, <65: HR 0.58; 95% CI= 0.46–0.75). Immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy was associated with lower RFS in non-ulcerated melanoma. Patients with stage IIIA benefited equally from adjuvant treatment as those with stage IIIB/C. Nivolumab/ipilimumab and ipilimumab monotherapy were associated with higher toxicity.

Conclusion

Adjuvant therapy should not be withheld on account of advanced age or stage IIIA alone. The presence of a BRAF mutation is prognostically favorable in terms of RFS. BRAF/MEK inhibitors should be preferred in the adjuvant treatment of BRAF-mutant non-ulcerated melanoma.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

A systematic review, one meta-analysis, and 34 additional randomized trials were identified. The published studies included a wide range of systemic therapies in cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the adjuvant setting, nivolumab or pembrolizumab should be offered to patients with resected stage IIIA/B/C/D BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while either of those two agents or the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. No recommendation could be made for or against the use of neoadjuvant therapy in cutaneous melanoma. In the unresectable/metastatic setting, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, nivolumab alone, or pembrolizumab alone should be offered to patients with BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while those three regimens or combination BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy with dabrafenib/trametinib, encorafenib/binimetinib, or vemurafenib/cobimetinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. Patients with mucosal melanoma may be offered the same therapies recommended for cutaneous melanoma. No recommendation could be made for or against specific therapy for uveal melanoma. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

The efficacy and safety of combined immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab plus ipilimumab): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, nivolumab and ipilimumab are the most widely used immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy in cancer treatment.

METHODS

We examined data from PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library. Eleven articles fulfilled our criteria, which we divided into 3 groups: nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab (the dose used for monotherapy is 3 mg/kg), nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab (the dose used for monotherapy is 3 mg/kg), and nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3) versus nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1). We measured the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), objective response rate (ORR), and TRAEs in any grade and grade 3 or higher.

RESULTS

The overall effect estimate favored the combined immunotherapy group in terms of the ORR (RR: 1.40, p < 0.001) and PR (RR: 1.50, p < 0.001) than nivolumab alone. Compared with ipilimumab alone, the combined immunotherapy group had better CR (RR: 4.89, p < 0.001), PR (RR: 2.75, p < 0.001), and ORR (RR: 3.31, p < 0.001). Finally, N1I3 showed better PR (RR: 1.35, p = 0.006) and ORR (RR: 1.21, p = 0.03) than N3I1. The incidence of any TRAEs was similar between both groups (RR: 1.05, p = 0.06). However, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) was lower in group N3I1 than group N1I3 (RR: 1.51, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that the curative effect of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was better than that of nivolumab or ipilimumab monotherapy. In the combined immunotherapy group, N1I3 was more effective than N3I1. Although the side effects were slightly increased in N1I3 group, overall safety was acceptable.