Patterns of treatment and BRAF testing with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma presumed to be BRAF positive

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy

OBJECTIVE

To identify real-world patterns of first line treatment, treatment sequence and outcomes for older adults diagnosed with advanced melanoma who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

METHODS

The study population included older adults (ages 65+) diagnosed with unresectable or metastatic melanoma between 2012 and 2017 and who received first line immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Using the linked surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data, we described patterns of first line treatment and treatment sequence through 2018. We used descriptive statistics to report patient and provider characteristics by first line treatment receipt and changes in first line therapy use over calendar time. We also described overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) by first line treatment using the Kaplan-Meier method. For patterns of treatment sequence, we reported commonly observed treatment switch patterns by treatment sub-category and calendar year.

RESULTS

The analyses included 584 patients (mean age = 76.3 years). A majority (n = 502) received first line immunotherapy. There was a sustained increase in immunotherapy uptake, most notably from 2015 to 2016. The estimated median OS and TTF were longer with first line immunotherapy than with targeted therapy. Individuals treated with CTLA-4 + PD-1 inhibitors had the longest median OS (28.4 months). The most common treatment switch pattern was from a first line CTLA-4 inhibitor to a second line PD-1 inhibitor.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings inform understanding of treatment patterns of currently used immunotherapies and targeted therapies in older adults with advanced melanoma. Immunotherapy use has increased steadily with PD-1 inhibitors becoming a dominant treatment option since 2015.

Real-world outcomes of different lines and sequences of treatment in BRAF-positive advanced melanoma patients

The objective of this study is to compare efficacy with different treatment sequences and lines of treatment among BRAF V600 mutated (BRAF+) advanced melanoma patients with immunotherapies (IO) and targeted therapies (TT) using real-world data. This was a retrospective cohort study using the Novartis BRAF+ meLanoma patients ObsErvational database, the harmonized customized data from Flatiron and ConcertAI. The study included BRAF+ advanced unresectable melanoma patients treated with first-line (1L) IO or TT between 1 January 2014 and 31 May 2020. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were described. Kaplan-Meier curves and propensity score-adjusted Cox models were used for analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A total of 1961 patients were included, of which, 57.2% received IO and 42.8% received TT on 1L therapy. Overall, 603 patients initiated a 2L therapy: 56.2% IO and 43.8% TT. Regardless of treatment sequence, patients progressed at a relatively similar rate with no significant difference between groups (median PFS: 12.9 months for 1L TT/2L IO and 13.1 months for 1L IO/2L TT; HR, 0.84; P = 0.137). The 2-year OS rate was also similar with 1L TT/2L IO and 1L IO/2L TT (78% vs. 80%; HR, 1.09; P = 0.730). PFS was worse on 2L therapy compared with 1L (median 4.7 vs. 6.5 months). Efficacy on 2L therapy was poor compared with 1L. Among patients who received 2L therapy, regardless of treatment sequences, outcomes were comparable between 1L TT/2L IO and 1L IO/2L TT in this study that reflects real-world experiences beyond clinical trial selective eligibility criteria.

Turnaround Times in Melanoma BRAF Testing and the Impact on the Initiation of Systemic Therapy at a Single Tertiary Care Cancer Center

PURPOSE

The identification of BRAF mutations in melanoma enables targeted therapy and improves patient outcomes. Barriers to BRAF molecular testing affect the quality of care and therapeutic options.

METHODS

This retrospective study mapped BRAF testing timelines in adult patients with melanoma at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre to identify obstacles to timely BRAF reporting and its impact on the initiation of therapy.

RESULTS

Sixty-six cases were included. The median time between BRAF request and result was 12 days (95% CI, 8 to 15) when the BRAF test was ordered by pathology, compared with 20 days (95% CI, 16 to 23) if the test was requested by another specialist (P < .001). When the BRAF test and biopsy were performed within the same institution, the BRAF median turnaround time (TAT) was 13 days (95% CI, 6 to 19) compared with 19 days (95% CI, 16 to 21) if the sample was transferred from another institution (P = .02). Forty-seven patients received systemic therapy, and 20 had metastatic disease. In the metastatic subgroup, if the BRAF result was available at the first medical oncology visit, the initiation of treatment was 20 days (95% CI, 9.6 to 30.3), but was delayed to 31 days (95% CI, 10.8 to 51.1) if the BRAF result was not available (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

This study showed variations in BRAF test results in TAT. One factor affecting this timeline is the transfer time, which can be streamlined by pathology reflex testing. Delays in TAT affect the timing and type of therapeutic intervention, especially in patients with stage IV disease.

Treatment patterns of melanoma by BRAF mutation status in the USA from 2011 to 2017: a retrospective cohort study

AIM

To describe treatment changes from 2011 to 2017 and demographic/clinical characteristics of patients with advanced melanoma who received systemic therapy by BRAF status.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Treatment patterns were evaluated in adults from the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records database who received antimelanoma systemic therapy.

RESULTS

Checkpoint inhibitors were prevailingly prescribed (66%); usage increased from 2011 (21%) to 2017 (84%). BRAF/MEK inhibitors were the second most common (21%); usage increased from 2011 (6%) to 2012 (18%) and stabilized until 2017 (22%). BRAF/MEK inhibitors (65%) and checkpoint inhibitors (57%) were predominantly used for BRAFMut melanoma.

CONCLUSION

Overall, checkpoint inhibitors have supplanted other therapies for advanced melanoma. Treatment shifts have occurred for BRAFMut melanoma, notably increased use of checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK combinations compared with monotherapies.

[Research Progress of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy for BRAF Mutation in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer]

在非小细胞肺癌（non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC）患者中，约2%-4%有BRAF基因突变，该型肿瘤恶性程度高、化疗有效率低、预后差。尽管BRAF抑制剂及MEK抑制剂联合治疗在BRAF V600E突变的晚期NSCLC患者中成效显著，已被写入美国国家综合癌症网络（National Comprehensive Cancer Network, NCCN）指南，但两药联合副作用发生率高，耐药之后尚无有效治疗策略，且针对非V600E突变患者仍缺乏靶向治疗方案。本文将针对BRAF突变型NSCLC免疫标志物表达情况以及免疫检查点抑制剂（immune checkpoint inhibitor, ICI）疗效相关研究做一综述，为延长患者生存提供更多选择方案。