Health related quality of life outcomes for unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab treatment

For the Long Haul: Management of Long-Term Survivors after Melanoma Systemic Therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes the latest advancements in survivorship care for patients with advanced melanoma who received systemic therapy and emphasizes the areas where more research is needed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last decade there have been remarkable advances in the treatment of advanced and metastatic melanoma. Due to these novel treatments, including several immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, there are and will continue to be increasing numbers of long-term melanoma survivors who have been treated with systemic therapy. These patients will navigate new challenges are they are essentially among the first long term survivors after these novel therapies. Survivorship care focuses on improving the health-related quality of life of patients including the physical, emotional, social and functional effects of cancer that begin at diagnosis and continue through the end of life. Survivorship also includes screening for cancer recurrence and second cancers. As the number of melanoma survivors who received systemic therapy continues to grow, the survivorship care plan will become increasingly important for optimal care of patients even after their cancer treatments. Understanding the many domains of survivorship care for this group of patients is imperative for their care now and to identify unmet needs for future research.

Patient reported outcomes and patient experiences of immune checkpoint modulators for advanced or recurrent melanoma: a mixed methods study

PURPOSE

Little is known about late and long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of immune checkpoint modulators (ICMs) outside clinical trials. We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study to describe long-term PROs among advanced melanoma patients who began standard of care treatment with ICMs at least 1 year previously.

METHODS

All participants completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Immune Checkpoint Modulator (FACT-ICM), assessing 46 immune-related side effects on a 5-point Likert scale, and a subset completed individual interviews. Descriptive statistics were computed for quantitative data and applied thematic analysis was used to examine qualitative data.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 80) had a mean age of 67 years, and the majority were male (66%), non-Hispanic White (96%), and college graduates (61%). Single-agent nivolumab was the most common first (47%) and current/recent ICM (64%). On the FACT-ICM, 98% of participants reported at least one side effect, and 78% reported moderate or severe side effects. The most common moderate or severe side effects were aching joints (43%) and fatigue (38%). In interviews (n = 20), we identified five themes regarding patients' longer-term experiences after ICMs: lasting fatigue or decline in functioning, minimal side effects, manageable thyroid and pituitary dysfunction, skin conditions can be difficult to manage, and treating the cancer is worth the side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all patients reported side effects of ICMs at least 1 year after starting treatment. Our findings suggest that ICM side effect screening and management-especially for aching joints and fatigue-are indicated during long-term care of people living with advanced melanoma.

Immunotherapy Combined with Radiation in Malignant Melanoma without BRAF Mutations Brain Metastases-Favorable Response after Immunotherapy Continued beyond Progression

We present the case of a patient who was diagnosed in 2018 with nodular Malignant Melanoma (MM) without BRAF V 600 mutations stage 3 C (pT4b pN1a M0), and who underwent adjuvant citokines treatment with Interferon alpha 2b-48 weeks. Immunotherapy was initiated in January 2021 for lung and lymph node metastases. In June 2021, there was a partial response of the lung and lymph node metastases, but there was also progression to brain metastases. Immunotherapy was continued and Whole Brain Radiotherapy (WBRT) was performed. In September 2023, the imaging investigations revealed a favorable response, with no lesions suggestive of secondary determinations. The combination of Radiotherapy (RT) and Immunotherapy (IT) with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) has an abscopal effect. There is a coordinated action in the combination of RT and IT in order to obtain a common result, with the antitumor effect being greater than if RT or IT acted separately.

FANCI serve as a prognostic biomarker correlated with immune infiltrates in skin cutaneous melanoma

Background

As a member of tumor, Skin cutaneous melanoma (SKCM) poses a serious threat to people's health because of its strong malignancy. Unfortunately, effective treatment methods for SKCM remain lacking. FANCI plays a vital role in the occurrence and metastasis of various tumor types. However, its regulatory role in SKCM is unclear. The purpose of this study was to explore the association of FANCI with SKCM.

Methods

This study investigated the expression of FANCI in GSE46517, GSE15605, and GSE114445 from the Gene Expression Omnibus database and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)-SKCM datasets using the package "limma" or "DESeq2" in R environment and also investigated the prognostic significance of FANCI by utilizing the GEPIA database. Additionally, our research made use of real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining to verify FANCI expression between SKCM and normal tissues and developed the knockdown of FANCI in A375 and A875 cells to further analyze the function of FANCI. Finally, this study analyzed the correlation of FANCI and tumor-infiltrating immune cells by CIBERSORT, ESTIMATE, and ssGSEA algorithms.

Results

The FANCI level was increasing in SKCM tissues from GSE46517, GSE15605, GSE114445, and TCGA-SKCM. However, high FANCI expression correlated with poor overall survival. The RT-qPCR and IHC confirmed the accuracy of bioinformatics. Knocking down FANCI suppresses A375 and A875 cell proliferation, migration, and invasion. FANCI could be involved in the immunological milieu of SKCM by regulating immune responses and infiltrating numerous immune cells, particularly neutrophils, CD8+ T cells, and B cells. Furthermore, patients with SKCM who have a high FANCI expression level are reported to exhibit immunosuppression, whereas those with a low FANCI expression level are more likely to experience positive outcomes from immunotherapy.

Conclusions

The increased FANCI expression in SKCM can be a prognostic biomarker. Knockdown FANCI can reduce the occurrence and progression of SKCM. The FANCI expression provides a foundation for predicting the immune status and treatment of SKCM.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures for advanced skin cancer patients

Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to study quality of life (QOL) in the skin cancer population. Advanced melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) may be associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and treatment side effects; however, it is unclear which PROM is valid and appropriate to use in these populations for both clinical and research purposes. We aimed to identify the PROMs that have been used to measure QOL in advanced skin cancer patients and determine which of these PROMs have been validated to assess QOL outcomes in this population. A PubMed and EMBASE search was conducted from its inception to March 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines with a comprehensive list of search terms under three main topics: (1) PROM; (2) advanced skin cancer; and (3) staging and interventions. We included articles utilizing a PROM measuring QOL and having a patient population with advanced skin cancer defined as melanoma stage > T1a or non-melanoma AJCC stage T3 or greater. Advanced skin cancer patients were also defined as those with metastasis or requiring adjuvant therapy (systemic chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy). Studies were excluded according to the following criteria: mix of low-risk and advanced skin cancer patients in the study population without stratification into low-risk and advanced groups, stage T1a melanoma or mix of stages without stratification, low-risk NMSC, no PROM (i.e., study specific questionnaires), non-English publication, review article or protocol paper, conference abstract, or populations including non-skin cancers. A total of 1,998 articles were identified. 82 met our inclusion criteria resulting in 22 PROMs: five generic health-related (QWB-SA, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D, SF-36, and PRISM), six general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-C36, LASA, IOC, Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, and FACT-G), nine disease-focused or specialized (EORTC QLQ-H&N35, EORTC QLQ-MEL38, EORTC QLQ-BR23, Facial Disability Index, FACT-H&N, FACT-BRM, FACT-B, FACT-M, and scqolit), and two general dermatology (Skindex-16 and DLQI) PROMs. All PROMs have been generally validated except for EORTC QLQ-MEL38. Only two PROMs have been validated in the advanced melanoma population: FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C36. No PROMS have been validated in the advanced NMSC population. The PROMs that were validated in the advanced melanoma population do not include QOL issues unique to advanced skin tumors such as odor, bleeding, itching, wound care burden, and public embarrassment. Breast cancer and head and neck cancer instruments were adapted but not validated for use in the advanced skin cancer population due to the lack of an adequate instrument for this population. This study highlights the need for PROM instrument validation or creation specifically geared toward the advanced skin cancer population. Future studies should aim to develop and validate a PROM to assess QOL in this population.

SMG7-AS1 as a prognostic biomarker and predictor of immunotherapy responses for skin cutaneous melanoma

Skin cutaneous melanoma (SKCM) is the most life-threatening skin cancer and lacks early detection and effective treatment strategies. Many long noncoding RNAs are associated with the development of tumors and may serve as potential immunotherapeutic targets. In this study, microarray analysis was performed to screen for differentially expressed lncRNAs between SKCM and normal tissues, and SMG7-AS1 was identified as an upregulated lncRNA in SKCM. Subsequently, bioinformatic analysis revealed that dysregulation of SMG7-AS1 influences metastasis and immune infiltration. qRT-PCR of clinical samples demonstrated that the expression of SMG7-AS1 was higher in melanoma tissues. Flow cytometry showed that SMG7-AS1 plays a vital role in the cell cycle. Additionally, SMG7-AS1 was found to be associated with immunotherapy responses. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to report that SMG7-AS1 is associated with SKCM and may serve as a prognostic biomarker and predictor of immunotherapy responses in SKCM.

Impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy on health-related quality of life of people with stage III and IV melanoma: a mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT) have significantly improved disease control and survival in people with stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma. Understanding the impact of therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQL) is vital for treatment decision-making and determining targets for supportive care intervention. We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review to synthesise the impact of ICIs and TT on all domains of HRQL in these populations.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in April 2022 on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review question were extracted and synthesised in tables according to setting (adjuvant versus metastatic), treatment type (ICI versus TT) and HRQL issue.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight papers describing 27 studies were included: 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), four cohort studies, four single arm cross-sectional studies, two qualitative studies, one case control study and one mixed-methods study. In four studies of people with resected stage III melanoma, adjuvant pembrolizumab and dabrafenib-trametinib did not clinically or statistically change HRQL compared to baseline. In 17 studies of people with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma, inconsistencies in the impact of ICI on symptoms, functioning and overall HRQL were noted across different study designs. TT was associated with improvements in symptoms, functioning and HRQL across six studies.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the key physical, psychological and social issues experienced by people with stage III and IV melanoma treated with ICI and TT. Inconsistencies in the impact of ICI on HRQL were observed in different study designs. This highlights the need for treatment-specific patient-reported outcome measures for determining the impact of these therapies on HRQL and real-world data to inform treatment decision-making and appropriate supportive care interventions.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment Strategies for Advanced Melanoma in Real Life in France

Nine drugs have been marketed for 10 years for the treatment of advanced melanoma (AM). With half of patients reaching a second line, the optimal sequence of treatments remains unclear. To inform policy-makers about their efficiency, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential strategies in clinical practice in France, for BRAF-mutated and wild-type patients. A multistate model was developed to describe treatment sequences, associated costs, and health outcomes over 10 years. Sequences, clinical outcomes, utility scores, and economic data were extracted from the prospective Melbase cohort, collecting individual data in 1518 patients since 2013, from their AM diagnosis until their death. To adjust the differences in patients' characteristics among sequences, weighting by inverse probability was used. In the BRAF-mutated population, the MONO-targeted therapies (TT)-anti-PD1 sequence was the less expensive, whereas the anti-PD1-BI-TT sequence had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 180,441 EUR/QALY. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population, the three sequences constituted the cost-effective frontier, with ICERs ranging from 116 to 806,000 EUR/QALY. For BRAF-mutated patients, the sequence anti-PD1-BI-TT appeared to be the most efficient one in BRAF-mutated AM patients until 2018. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population until 2018, the sequence starting with IPI+NIVO appeared inefficient compared to anti-PD1, considering the extra cost for the QALY gained.

Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab: prognostic implications and changes during treatment

Background

We have previously reported that the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab in real-world patients with metastatic melanoma were comparable to clinical trials. Few studies have explored health-related quality of life (HRQL) in real-world populations receiving checkpoint inhibitors. This study reports HRQL in real-world patients receiving ipilimumab and assesses the prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures.

Patients and methods

Ipi4 (NCT02068196) was a prospective, multicentre, interventional phase IV trial. Real-world patients (N = 151) with metastatic melanoma were treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg intravenously as labelled. HRQL was assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at baseline and after 10-12 weeks.

Results

The European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire was completed by 93% (141/151 patients) at baseline, and by 82% at 10-12 weeks. Poor performance status and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) were associated with worse baseline HRQL. Clinically relevant and statistically significant deteriorations in HRQL from baseline to weeks 10-12 were reported (P <0.05). Baseline physical functioning [hazard ratio (HR) 1.96, P = 0.016], role functioning (HR 2.15, P <0.001), fatigue (HR 1.60, P = 0.030), and appetite loss (HR 1.76, P = 0.012) were associated with poorer overall survival independent of performance status, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and CRP. We further developed a prognostic model, combining HRQL outcomes with performance status, LDH, and CRP. This model identified three groups with large and statistically significant differences in survival.

Conclusions

Systemic inflammation is associated with impaired HRQL. During treatment with ipilimumab, HRQL deteriorated significantly. Combining HRQL outcomes with objective risk factors provided additional prognostic information that may aid clinical decision making.

•

HRQL was independently associated with survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving ipilimumab.

•

Patients experienced clinically meaningful and statistically significant deteriorations in HRQL during therapy.

•

A prognostic model combining HRQL and biological markers defined three groups with highly variable life expectancies.

•

This prognostic model may be of use in clinical decision making.

Potential association factors for developing effective peptide-based cancer vaccines

Peptide-based cancer vaccines have been shown to boost immune systems to kill tumor cells in cancer patients. However, designing an effective T cell epitope peptide-based cancer vaccine still remains a challenge and is a major hurdle for the application of cancer vaccines. In this study, we constructed for the first time a library of peptide-based cancer vaccines and their clinical attributes, named CancerVaccine (https://peptidecancervaccine.weebly.com/). To investigate the association factors that influence the effectiveness of cancer vaccines, these peptide-based cancer vaccines were classified into high (HCR) and low (LCR) clinical responses based on their clinical efficacy. Our study highlights that modified peptides derived from artificially modified proteins are suitable as cancer vaccines, especially for melanoma. It may be possible to advance cancer vaccines by screening for HLA class II affinity peptides may be an effective therapeutic strategy. In addition, the treatment regimen has the potential to influence the clinical response of a cancer vaccine, and Montanide ISA-51 might be an effective adjuvant. Finally, we constructed a high sensitivity and specificity machine learning model to assist in designing peptide-based cancer vaccines capable of providing high clinical responses. Together, our findings illustrate that a high clinical response following peptide-based cancer vaccination is correlated with the right type of peptide, the appropriate adjuvant, and a matched HLA allele, as well as an appropriate treatment regimen. This study would allow for enhanced development of cancer vaccines.

Monoclonal Antibodies to CTLA-4 with Focus on Ipilimumab

The immune checkpoint cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4 or CD152) is a negative regulator of T-cell-mediated immune responses which plays a critical role in suppressing autoimmunity and maintaining immune homeostasis. Because of its inhibitory activity on T cells, CTLA-4 has been investigated as a drug target to induce immunostimulation, blocking the interaction with its ligands. The antitumor effects mediated by CTLA-4 blockade have been attributed to a sustained active immune response against cancer cells, due to the release of a brake on T cell activation. Ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a fully human anti-CTLA-4 IgG1κ monoclonal antibody (mAb) that represents the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved as monotherapy by FDA and EMA in 2011 for the treatment of unresectable/metastatic melanoma. In 2015, FDA also granted approval to ipilimumab monotherapy as adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma to reduce the risk of tumour recurrence. The subsequent approved indications of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma, regardless of BRAF mutational status, and other advanced/metastatic solid tumours always involve its use in association with the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) mAb nivolumab. Currently, ipilimumab is evaluated in ongoing clinical trials for refractory/advanced solid tumours mainly in combination with additional immunostimulating agents.

Meta-Analysis of Quality of Life in Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have published patient-reported quality of life (QOL), but the size and heterogeneity of this literature can make patient education difficult. This meta-analysis aimed to describe change in QOL and symptomatology in patients receiving ICIs for cancer.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, databases were searched through November 2019 for articles or abstracts of prospective, original studies reporting longitudinal QOL in adult cancer patients treated with ICIs. The prespecified primary outcomes were change in global QOL among patients treated with ICIs and difference in change since baseline in global QOL between patients treated with ICI vs. non-ICI active treatment. Secondary outcomes included physical functioning and symptomatology. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

Twenty-six of 20,323 publications met inclusion criteria. Global QOL did not change over time in patients treated with ICIs (k = 26, n = 6,974, P = .19). Larger improvements in global QOL was observed in patients receiving ICI vs. non-ICI regimens (k = 16, ICI n = 3,588, non-ICI n = 2,948, P < .001). Physical functioning did not change in patients treated with ICIs (k = 14, n = 3,169, P=.47); there were no differences in mean change between ICI vs. non-ICI regimens (k = 11, n = 4,630, P=.94. Regarding symptoms, appetite loss, insomnia, and pain severity decreased but dyspnea severity increased in patients treated with ICIs (k = 14, n = 3,243-3,499) (Ps < 0.001). Insomnia severity was higher in patients treated with ICIs than non-ICI regimens (k = 11, n = 4,791) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is among the first to quantitatively summarize QOL in patients treated with ICIs. Findings suggest ICI recipients report no change in global QOL and higher QOL than patients treated with non-ICI regimens.

Impact of open-label versus blinded study design on patient-reported outcomes data in randomized clinical trials of immunotherapy in advanced or metastatic cancer patients: a systematic review

AIM

A systematic literature review of immuno-oncology trials was conducted to assess the potential impact of open-label vs double-blind trial design on patient-reported outcome (PRO) data.

METHODS

A systematic search of indexed literature published from January 2009 to May 2019 was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE database. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of immuno-oncology therapies on advanced cancer patients reporting PRO data were identified. Descriptive analyses were performed to quantify differences at baseline and over time, by the type of study, regarding questionnaire completion rate and PRO scores.

RESULTS

In total, 23 studies were retained (15 open-label, 8 blinded). At baseline, no difference in completion rate was observed between arms irrespective of trial design (absolute mean difference of 2.8% and 2.2% for open label and blinded studies, respectively). No clinically significant difference in baseline PRO scores was observed between arms. Over time, impact on PRO scores could not be identified due to the limited number of studies, heterogeneity of questionnaires and tumor types.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial design had no impact on PRO completion rate or baseline scores. Future research should involve analyses by specific cancer types and ideally compare individual data from two similar RCTs (blinded vs. open-label).

Quality of life in long-term survivors of advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint inhibitors

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) have revolutionized treatment of advanced melanoma, leading to an emerging population of long-term survivors. Survivors’ quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden are poorly understood. We set out to evaluate symptom burden and QOL in patients with advanced melanoma alive more than 1 year after initiating CI therapy.

Methods

Cross-sectional surveys, accompanied by chart review of patients with advanced melanoma treated with CIs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, completed therapy, and were alive >1 year after treatment initiation. Surveys were administered between February and August 2018. Surveys included: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, EuroQOL, items from Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Fatigue Severity Scale.

Results

We included 90 patients. The most common CI regimens were ipilimumab plus nivolumab (53%) and pembrolizumab (41%); most patients (71%) were not treated in clinical trials. Median time from CI therapy initiation was 40 months and from last dose was 28 months. Fatigue was reported by 28%, with higher fatigue scores in women than men; 12% reported difficulty sleeping. Aching joints (17%) and muscles (12%) were fairly common. Level of functioning was generally high. Overall QOL was excellent though 40% reported ‘some or moderate’ problems with anxiety/depression and 31% with pain/discomfort.

Conclusions

After CI therapy, long-surviving advanced melanoma patients commonly report fatigue but otherwise have moderate symptom burden and good QOL. Ensuring appropriate symptom management will optimize clinical outcomes for these patients.

Long-term real-world experience with ipilimumab and non-ipilimumab therapies in advanced melanoma: the IMAGE study

Background

Ipilimumab has shown long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials, but robust real-world evidence is lacking. We present long-term outcomes from the IMAGE study (NCT01511913) in patients receiving ipilimumab and/or non-ipilimumab (any approved treatment other than ipilimumab) systemic therapies.

Methods

IMAGE was a multinational, prospective, observational study assessing adult patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or non-ipilimumab systemic therapies between June 2012 and March 2015 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Adjusted OS curves based on multivariate Cox regression models included covariate effects. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

Results

Among 1356 patients, 1094 (81%) received ipilimumab and 262 (19%) received non-ipilimumab index therapy (systemic therapy [chemotherapy, anti–programmed death 1 antibodies, or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors], radiotherapy, and radiosurgery). In the overall population, median age was 64 years, 60% were male, 78% were from Europe, and 78% had received previous treatment for advanced melanoma. In the ipilimumab-treated cohort, 780 (71%) patients did not receive subsequent therapy (IPI-noOther) and 314 (29%) received subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (IPI-Other) on study. In the non-ipilimumab–treated cohort, 205 (78%) patients remained on or received other subsequent non-ipilimumab therapy (Other-Other) and 57 (22%) received subsequent ipilimumab therapy (Other-IPI) on study. Among 1151 patients who received ipilimumab at any time during the study (IPI-noOther, IPI-Other, and Other-IPI), 296 (26%) reported CTCAE grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, most occurring in year 1. Ipilimumab-treated and non-ipilimumab–treated patients who switched therapy (IPI-Other and Other-IPI) had longer OS than those who did not switch (IPI-noOther and Other-Other). Patients with prior therapy who did not switch therapy (IPI-noOther and Other-Other) showed similar OS. In treatment-naive patients, those in the IPI-noOther group tended to have longer OS than those in the Other-Other group. Patient-reported outcomes were similar between treatment cohorts.

Conclusions

With long-term follow-up (≥ 3 years), safety and OS in this real-world population of patients treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg were consistent with those reported in clinical trials. Patient-reported quality of life was maintained over the study period. OS analysis across both pretreated and treatment-naive patients suggested a beneficial role of ipilimumab early in treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01511913. Registered January 19, 2012 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01511913

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08032-y.

Characteristics Associated With Functional Changes During Systemic Cancer Treatments: A Systematic Review Focused on Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Maintaining functional status is important to older adults with cancer, but data are limited on how systemic treatments affect functional status. We systematically reviewed changes in functional status during systemic cancer treatments and identified characteristics associated with functional decline and improvement.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials for articles examining characteristics associated with functional changes in older adults during systemic cancer treatment published in English between database inception and January 11, 2019 (PROSPERO CRD42019123125). Findings were summarized with descriptive statistics. Study characteristics between older adult-specific and non-older adult-specific studies were compared using the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

We screened 15,244 titles/abstracts and 519 full texts. The final analysis included 44 studies, which enrolled >8,400 patients; 39% of studies focused on older adults (1 study enrolled adults aged ≥60 years, 10 enrolled adults aged ≥65 years, and 6 enrolled adults aged ≥70 years). Almost all studies (98%) used patient-reported outcomes to measure functional status; only 20% used physical performance tests. Reporting of functional change was heterogeneous, with 48% reporting change scores. Older adult-specific studies were more likely to analyze functional change dichotomously (29% vs 4%; P=.008). Functional decline ranged widely, from 6% to 90%. The most common patient characteristics associated with functional decline were older age (n=7 studies), worse performance status (n=4), progressive disease status (n=4), pain (n=4), anemia (n=4), and worse nutritional status (n=4). Twelve studies examined functional improvement and identified 11 unique associated characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional decline is increasingly recognized as an important outcome in older adults with cancer, but definitions and analyses are heterogeneous, leading to a wide range of prevalence. To identify patients at highest risk of functional decline during systemic cancer treatments, trials need to routinely analyze functional outcomes and measure characteristics associated with decline (eg, nutrition).

Health-related quality of life of long-term advanced melanoma survivors treated with anti-CTLA-4 immune checkpoint inhibition compared to matched controls

BACKGROUND

Checkpoint inhibitors have changed overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. However, there is a lack of data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of long-term advanced melanoma survivors, years after treatment. Therefore, we evaluated HRQoL in long-term advanced melanoma survivors and compared the study outcomes with matched controls without cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ipilimumab-treated advanced melanoma survivors without evidence of disease and without subsequent systemic therapy for a minimum of two years following last administration of ipilimumab were eligible for this study. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma questionnaire (FACT-M) were administered. Controls were individually matched for age, gender, and educational status. Outcomes of survivors and controls were compared using generalized estimating equations, and differences were interpreted as clinically relevant according to published guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 89 survivors and 265 controls were analyzed in this study. After a median follow-up of 39 (range, 17-121) months, survivors scored significantly lower on physical (83.7 vs. 89.8, difference (diff) = -5.80, p=.005), role (83.5 vs. 90, diff = -5.97, p=.02), cognitive (83.7 vs. 91.9, diff = -8.05, p=.001), and social functioning (86.5 vs. 95.1, diff = -8.49, p= <.001) and had a higher symptom burden of fatigue (23.0 vs. 15.5, diff = 7.48, p=.004), dyspnea (13.3 vs. 6.7, diff = 6.47 p=.02), diarrhea (7.9 vs. 4.0, diff = 3.78, p=.04), and financial impact (10.5 vs. 2.5, diff = 8.07, p=.001) than matched controls. Group differences were indicated as clinically relevant.

DISCUSSION

Compared to matched controls, long-term advanced melanoma survivors had overall worse functioning scores, more physical symptoms, and financial difficulties. These data may contribute to the development of appropriate survivorship care.

Patient-reported outcome instruments used in immune-checkpoint inhibitor clinical trials in oncology: a systematic review

Context

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have shown significant benefits for overall survival across various cancer types. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed in clinical trials as a measure of efficacy. However, it remains unclear to what extent current PRO instruments capture symptoms specific to ICI toxicities. We conducted a systematic review to identify the use and content validity of PRO instruments in ICI clinical trials in oncology.

Methods

Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Medline and CINAHL databases. Articles presenting ICI clinical trials’ PRO results, clinical trial study protocols, and conference abstracts stating the use of PRO measures were assessed. We evaluated the validity of identified instruments by comparing their symptom-related content with the adverse events reported in each ICI clinical trial.

Results

From database inception until January 2020, we identified 191 ICI clinical trials stating the use of PRO measures of which 26 published PRO results. The cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and the generic EQ-5D questionnaires were the most widely used instruments, often in combination with disease-specific PROs. Instruments used to report PRO symptom-related toxicities covered 45% of the most frequently reported AEs, whereas 23% of AEs were partially covered and 29% were not covered at all. Of non-covered AEs, 59% referred to the dermatologic system. Partially covered AEs related to endocrine and specific types of pain.

Conclusion

Despite the high frequency of symptom-related toxicities related to ICI, these events are only partially covered (or not addressed) by current PRO instruments, even when combined. Further research is needed to develop new strategies to tailor PRO instruments to specific ICI toxicities.

Health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immunotherapies in real-world clinical practice settings

Background

Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are approved advanced melanoma (AM) immunotherapies. To address limited health-related quality of life (QoL) real-world evidence with immunotherapies in AM, we compared QoL in AM patients receiving either treatment in clinical practice.

Methods

A prospective US observational study enrolled adult AM patients initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between June 2017 and March 2018. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 global health score (GHS) and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Mean changes were compared using repeated measures mixed-effects models and are presented covariate adjusted.

Results

225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI + NIVO patients were enrolled. From baseline through week 24, PEMBRO was associated with 3.2 mean GHS score increase (95% CI 0.5, 5.9; p = .02), while no change was observed with IPI + NIVO; 0.2 (95% CI − 2.6, 3.0; p = 0.87). Among objective treatment-responders, GHS scores associated with PEMBRO increased 6.0 (95% CI 3.1, 8.8; p < .0001); IPI + NIVO patients increased 3.8 (95% CI 0.8, 6.9; p = .01). In treatment non-responders, IPI + NIVO was associated with GHS/QoL deterioration of − 3.7 (95% CI − 6.8, − 0.6; p = .02), PEMBRO non-responders demonstrated no change; 0.7 (95% CI − 2.3, 3.7; p = 0.6). Between treatments, PEMBRO patients increased 2.6 greater in EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.6, 4.5; p = .01) vs IPI + NIVO at 24 weeks.

Conclusions

PEMBRO was associated with better 24-week QoL compared to IPI + NIVO in actual clinical practice settings. Real-world data has known limitations, but with further confirmation these results may have implications for treatment selection.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02520-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health-related quality of life in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review on reporting of methods in randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently shown tremendous promise in the treatment of diverse cancers. The available data suggests that ICIs are well tolerated in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) compared to other anticancer therapies. However, it appears that instruments currently used to evaluate HRQOL in this context may fail to capture important symptomatology unique to ICIs. This systematic review was designed to assess the adequacy of methods used to report HRQOL in cancer patients treated with ICIs and to identify the quality of life scales used.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed (systematic registration number: PROSPERO: CRD42019121427). A search of the PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences collection, and SocINDEX databases was carried out for publications in English and in French. Relevant databases were searched from the earliest records through to March 2019. Publications were selected if they reported on HRQOL in patients with cancer treated by ICIs. Risk of bias was scored using the Cochrane Collaboration bias assessment tool.

RESULTS

Our search identified 144 publications between 2012 and 2019, of which 15 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The results suggest that even though the overall reporting of HRQOL was deemed to be of good quality, the data available was marred by methodological aspects such as the lack of HRQOL research hypotheses and the lack of questionnaires validated for cancer patients treated with immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the art and identifies gaps in knowledge on HRQOL analysis with respect to ICIs. It also suggests avenues for further research.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs in First-Line Treatments for Patients with Metastatic Melanoma in the United States

BACKGROUND

The treatment landscape for patients with metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically with the introduction of novel therapies, such as targeted therapies and immunotherapies, in recent years. Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and cost data are needed to further evaluate these treatments in a value-based health care system.

OBJECTIVE

To examine HCRU and total cost of care among U.S. metastatic melanoma patients treated with first-line systemic therapies, including immunotherapies, targeted therapies, and chemotherapy.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted using a U.S. claims database. Adults with ≥ 2 claims for melanoma and ≥ 1 claim for metastasis between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2017, were identified. Patients had pharmacy and medical enrollment ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 3 months following first-line treatment start. Per patient per month (PPPM) HCRU and costs were calculated by first-line treatment drug class: PD-1 inhibitors, CTLA-4 inhibitors, CTLA-4 + PD-1 combination, BRAF monotherapy, BRAF + MEK combination, and chemotherapy. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for HCRU were estimated by logistic regressions and adjusted costs were estimated by generalized linear models using log-link with gamma distribution to control for differences in patient characteristics across groups.

RESULTS

Among 1,599 metastatic melanoma patients (PD-1, n = 255; CTLA-4, n = 555; CTLA-4 + PD-1, n = 88; BRAF, n = 210; BRAF + MEK, n=102; chemotherapy=389), mean age ranged from 59-68 years, and the majority were male (62%). Any hospitalization during first-line treatment was less frequent among PD-1-treated patients (25.9%) compared with 34.7%-45.5% of all other groups (all P < 0.05). PPPM hospitalizations were lowest in PD-1 (0.06) compared with 0.09-0.16 across all other groups (all P < 0.05), and PPPM emergency department (ED) visits were lowest in PD-1 (0.09) compared with 0.13-0.18 across all other groups (all P < 0.05), except for BRAF + MEK (0.14, P = 0.08). CTLA-4, CTLA-4 + PD-1, and BRAF + MEK had increased odds of hospitalization compared to PD-1 (adjusted ORs = 2.10, 2.35, 2.15, respectively; all P < 0.05). Total adjusted PPPM costs were significantly lower for PD-1 ($13,059) compared with CTLA-4 ($25,583), CTLA-4 + PD-1 ($31,310), and BRAF + MEK ($21,517) and higher compared to BRAF ($8,158) and chemotherapy ($6,361).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalizations and ED visits represent important HCRU for metastatic melanoma patients and were lowest among PD-1-treated patients compared with any other systemic therapies (except for ED visits when compared with BRAF + MEK). Total monthly costs varied substantially across first-line regimens and were significantly lower in PD-1-treated patients compared with patients treated with CTLA-4, CTLA-4 + PD-1, and BRAF + MEK.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Klink, Feinberg, and Nero are employees of Cardinal Health Specialty Solutions, which received funding from Merck to conduct this study. Chmielsowki is a consultant to Merck but received no funding for the development of this manuscript. Ahsan and Liu are employees of Merck. Chmielowski reports advisory board/speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Iovance Biotherapeutics, HUYA Bioscience International, Compugen, Array BioPharma, Regeneron, Biothera, Janssen, and Novartis. Ahsan has a patent (US20160008380A1) pending.

The survivorship experience for patients with metastatic melanoma on immune checkpoint and BRAF-MEK inhibitors

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BMi) have improved survival in metastatic melanoma (MM). However, the experience of long-term responders remains undescribed. This study characterised survivorship issues faced by long-term responders to ICI or BMi.

METHODS

Patients with MM, aged ≥ 18 years old, ≥ 6 months post-ICI or BMi initiation with an objective response or stable disease. A 72-question survey assessed physical and psychological effects, impact on lifestyle, access to information, satisfaction with care, and availability of supports.

RESULTS

One hundred and five of 120 (88%) patients completed the survey (ICI 69/BMI 36). For the ICI cohort, 39 (57%) were receiving ongoing treatment, 17 ceased due to toxicity and 13 due to a sustained response. For the BMi cohort, 31 (85%) were receiving ongoing treatment, 4 ceased due to toxicity and 1 due to a sustained complete response. At data cut-off on 18 December 2018, median PFS (range) was 2.5 years (1.3-8.5) for ICI and 3.1 years (0.6-7.3) for BMi. Long-term toxicities included dry/itchy skin (ICI 51, 74%/ BMi 25, 69%), arthralgias (ICI 30, 58%/ BMi 23, 64%) and fatigue (ICI 62, 90%/ BMi 33, 92%). Psychological morbidity was common, including anxiety awaiting results (ICI 50, 72%/ BMi 29, 81%), fear of melanoma recurring or progressing (ICI 56, 81%/ BMi 31, 86%) or death (ICI 44, 64%/ BMi 26, 72%).

CONCLUSION

MM survivors experience chronic treatment toxicities and frequently report psychological concerns.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivors may benefit from discussions regarding long-term toxicities and tailored psychological supports.

Patient-Reported Outcomes with PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors for Advanced Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors and standard-of-care therapy in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, avelumab, or durvalumab) with standard-of-care therapy in patients with advanced cancer reporting PROs with generic measures: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (QLQ-C30) and the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire. The summary outcomes were changes in PROs from baseline to follow-up within and between treatment groups and time to deterioration (TTD) in PROs based on clinically meaningful change.

RESULTS

A total of 6,334 patients from 13 RCTs were included: six nivolumab, five pembrolizumab, and two atezolizumab trials. For the QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life, the pooled difference in mean change between treatment groups was 5.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-6.9; p < .001) favoring PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. The pooled mean change from baseline in PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and controls was 0.1 (95% CI, -2.2, 2.5) and - 6.1 (95% CI, -8.4, -3.8), respectively. The TTD was significantly longer with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, with a hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93; p = .011). Similarly, significantly better outcomes were noted with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors on most of the other PRO measures.

CONCLUSION

PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors maintained health-related quality of life to a greater degree and had less worsening in symptoms than standard-of-care therapy even though patients on these immune modulators were on treatment longer. The better PRO profile further supports the clinical benefit of this treatment strategy for advanced cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors and standard-of-care therapy in patients with advanced cancer. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were associated with consistently smaller PRO score deterioration from baseline to follow-up for different health-related quality-of-life and symptoms scales. In addition, the time to deterioration in multiple PRO domains was significantly longer with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Taken together, these findings indicate that the patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors maintained health-related quality of life to a greater degree and had less symptom burden compared with those treated with standard-of-care therapy.

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Cancer Patients Receiving Checkpoint Inhibitors: Opportunities for Palliative Care-A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly used to treat a variety of cancers, but comparatively little is known about patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients receiving these novel therapies.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review to examine PROs and HRQoL among cancer patients receiving ICIs as compared to other anticancer therapies.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, using search terms representing ICIs, PROs, and HRQoL on August 10, 2018. Eligible articles were required to involve cancer patients treated with ICIs and to report PROs and/or HRQoL data.

RESULTS

We screened 1453 references and included 15 publications representing 15 randomized controlled trials in our analysis. Studies included several cancer types (melanoma, lung cancer, genitourinary cancer, and head/neck cancer), used four different ICIs (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and ipilimumab), and compared ICIs to a wide range of therapies (chemotherapy, targeted therapies, other immunotherapy strategies, and placebo). Studies used a total of seven different PROs to measure HRQOL, most commonly the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 12, 80%). PRO data were reported in a variety of formats and at a variety of time points throughout treatment, which made direct comparison challenging. Some trials (n = 11, 73%) reported PROs on specific symptoms. In general, patients receiving ICIs had similar-to-improved HRQoL and experiences when compared to other therapies.

CONCLUSION

Despite the broad clinical trials experience of ICI therapies across cancer types, relatively few randomized studies reported PROs and patient HRQoL data. Available data suggest that ICIs are well tolerated in terms of HRQoL compared to other anticancer therapies although the conclusions are limited by the heterogeneity of trial designs and outcomes. Currently used instruments may fail to capture important symptomatology unique to ICIs, underscoring a need for PROs designed specifically for ICIs.

Long-Term Survival, Quality of Life, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Advanced Melanoma Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become a standard of care option for the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. Since the approval of the first immune checkpoint (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab in 2011 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) blocking monoclonal antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab thereafter, an increasing proportion of patients with unresectable advanced melanoma achieved long-term overall survival. Little is known about the psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive function, and quality of life (QOL) of these survivors. Knowledge about the long term side-effects of these novel treatments is scarce as long-term survivorship is a novel issue in the field of immunotherapy. The purpose of this review is to summarize our current knowledge regarding the survival and safety results of pivotal clinical trials in the field of advanced melanoma and to highlight potential long-term consequences that are likely to impact psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive functioning, and QOL. The issues raised substantiate the need for clinical investigation of these issues with the aim of optimizing comprehensive health care for advanced melanoma survivors.

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC) present a review of the literature and position statement on health-related (HR) QoL assessment in skin cancer patients. A literature search was carried out to identify publications since 1980 that included information about the impact of SC on QoL. Generic, dermatology-specific, cancer-specific, SC-specific, facial SC-specific, NMSC-specific, basal cell carcinoma-specific and melanoma-specific QoL questionnaires have been used to assess HRQoL in SC patients. HRQoL was assessed in the context of creation and validation of the HRQoL instruments, clinical trials, comparison of QoL in SC and other cancers, other diseases or controls, HRQoL assessment after treatment, comorbidities, behaviour modification, predictors of QoL and survival, supportive care needs, coping strategies and fear of cancer recurrence. The most widely used instruments for HRQoL assessment in SC patients are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Short Form 36 Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The TFs recommend the use of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30, especially in late stages of disease, and the melanoma-specific FACT-M and SC-specific SCI questionnaires. These instruments have been well validated and used in several studies. Other HRQoL instruments, also with good basic validation, are not currently recommended because the experience of their use is too limited. Dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments can be used to assess the impact of skin-related problems in SC. The TFs encourage further studies to validate HRQoL instruments for use in different stages of SC, in order to allow more detailed practical recommendations on HRQoL assessment in SC.

Patient-reported treatment-related symptom burden for patients with advanced melanoma in Canada

Background

Little is known on the impact of emerging treatments for advanced melanoma (stages III and IV) on patients’ functioning and well-being. The objective of this study was to describe the patient-reported treatment-related symptom (TRS) burden in advanced melanoma.

Method

Twenty-nine in-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted among adult patients with advanced melanoma in Canada using a semi-structured interview method. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and key concepts were identified using a grounded theory analytic approach.

Results

The 29 patients reported 13 unique treatment journeys involving the following drug therapy categories: cytotoxic chemotherapies, CTLA-4 inhibitors, BRAF or MEK inhibitors, and PD-1 inhibitors. Patients typically underwent multiple treatment episodes over time. Common TRSs included nausea, fatigue, diarrhea or constipation, and skin rashes. Patients described these as impacting their physical functioning, ability to perform activities of daily living, social functioning, and overall quality of life.

Conclusion

Our findings provide a description of the patient’s experience with treatment for advanced melanoma. Our sample included patients typically diagnosed in mid-life, facing an urgent sequence of medical procedures and a pharmacological treatment journey that was burdensome. There is a need for less toxic and more efficacious treatments earlier in the patient journey to alleviate the impact of advanced melanoma treatment on patients’ health-related quality of life.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.

Humanistic burden of disease for patients with advanced melanoma in Canada

Background

Metastatic melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer, often striking in the prime of life. This study provides new information directly from advanced melanoma (stage III and IV) patients on how their disease impacts their health-related quality of life (HRQL).

Methods

Twenty-nine in-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted with adult patients with advanced melanoma in Canada. A semi-structured interview guide was used. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and key concepts were identified using a grounded theory analytic approach.

Results

Many patients’ journeys began with the startling diagnosis of an invasive disease and a vastly shortened life expectancy. By the time they reached an advanced stage of melanoma, these patients’ overall functioning and quality of life had been greatly diminished by this quickly progressing cancer. The impact was described in terms of physical pain and disability, emotional distress, diminished interactions with friends and family, and burden on caregivers.

Conclusion

Our findings provide evidence of signs, symptoms, and functional impacts of advanced melanoma. Signs and symptoms reported (physical, mental, and social) confirm and expand on those reported in the existing clinical literature. Primary care physicians should be better trained to identify melanomas early. Oncology care teams can improve on their current approaches for helping patients navigate treatment options, with information about ancillary services to mitigate disease impacts on HRQL, such as mental health and social supports, as well as employment or financial support services.

Quality-of-life outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma: A review of the literature

For patients with metastatic melanoma, the emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted BRAF and MEK inhibitors has markedly enhanced clinical outcomes compared with chemotherapy. However, these novel agents are also associated with unique sets of adverse events, and increased overall survival can lead to prolonged exposure to some novel agents. Therefore, clinical evaluation of these therapies has now included the analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in addition to more traditional efficacy and safety outcomes as a measure of patient perception of benefit. The current review focuses on HRQoL outcomes in clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma to inform healthcare providers about patient perception of HRQoL as a new perspective in treatment decision making.

Health-related quality of life results from the phase III CheckMate 067 study

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody of immune checkpoint programmed death 1 on T cells (PD-1), combined with ipilimumab, an immune checkpoint cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor, as combination therapy on the one hand and nivolumab as monotherapy on the other, have both demonstrated improved efficacy compared with ipilimumab alone in the CheckMate 067 study. However, the combination resulted in a higher frequency of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), which could result in diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here we report analyses of HRQoL for patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trial CheckMate 067.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

HRQoL was assessed at weeks 1 and 5 per 6-week cycle for the first 6 months, once every 6 weeks thereafter, and at two follow-up visits using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Care Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EuroQoL Five Dimensions Questionnaire. In addition to the randomised population, patient subgroups, including BRAF mutation status, partial or complete response, treatment-related AEs of grade 3/4, and those who discontinued due to any reason and due to an AE, were investigated.

RESULTS

Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone both maintained HRQoL, and no clinically meaningful deterioration was observed over time compared with ipilimumab. In addition, similar results were observed across patient subgroups, and no clinically meaningful changes in HRQoL were observed during follow-up visits for patients who discontinued due to any cause.

CONCLUSION

These results further support the clinical benefit of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. The finding that the difference in grade 3/4 AEs between the arms did not translate into clinically meaningful differences in the reported HRQoL may be relevant in the clinical setting.

STUDY NUMBER

NCT01844505.

Multiple treatment comparison of seven new drugs for patients with advanced malignant melanoma: a systematic review and health economic decision model in a Norwegian setting

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven new drugs (cobimetinib, dabrafenib, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, trametinib and vemurafenib) used for treatment of patients with advanced malignant melanoma in the Norwegian setting.

DESIGN

A multiple technology assessment.

PATIENTS

Patients with advanced malignant melanoma aged 18 or older.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search for randomised controlled trials in relevant bibliographic databases.

METHODS

We performed network meta-analyses using both direct and indirect evidence with dacarbazine as a common comparator. We ranked the different treatments in terms of their likelihood of leading to the best results for each endpoint. The cost-utility analysis was based on a probabilistic discrete-time Markov cohort model. The model calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with different treatment strategies from a healthcare perspective. Sensitivity analysis was performed by means of Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Monotherapies with a programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor had a higher probability of good performance for overall survival than monotherapies with ipilimumab or BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The combination treatments had all similar levels of effectiveness to the PD-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitors.PD-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitors are more effective and more costly compared with ipilimumab in monotherapy. Nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab had higher costs and the same level of effectiveness as the PD-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitors in monotherapy.BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations (dabrafenib and trametinib or vemurafenib and cobimetinib) had both similar effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; however, the combination therapies are more likely to give higher quality adjusted life year gains than BRAF or MEK inhibitor monotherapies, but to a higher cost.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the drugs investigated can be considered cost-effective at what has normally been considered a reasonable willingness-to-pay (WTP) in Norway. Price reductions (from the official list prices) in the region of 63%-84% would be necessary for these drugs to be cost-effective at a WTP of €55 850 per QALY.

Health-related quality of life with adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): secondary outcomes of a multinational, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The EORTC 18071 phase 3 trial compared adjuvant ipilimumab with placebo in patients with stage III melanoma. The primary endpoint, recurrence-free survival, was significantly longer in the ipilimumab group than in the placebo group. Investigator-reported toxic effects of ipilimumab consisted mainly of skin, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and hepatic immune-related adverse events. Adjuvant treatment with ipilimumab in this setting was approved in October, 2014, by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the results of the primary outcome of this trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), of this trial.

METHODS

EORTC 18071 was a multinational, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) in 19 countries worldwide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by an interactive voice response system, to receive either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geographical region. HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality-of-life instrument at baseline, weeks 4, 7, 10, and 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter up to 2 years, irrespective of disease progression. Results were summarised by timepoint and in a longitudinal manner in the intention-to-treat population. Two summary scores were calculated for each HRQoL scale: the average score reported during induction (ipilimumab or placebo at a dose of 10 mg/kg, administered as one single dose at the start of days 1, 22, 43, and 64-ie, four doses in 3 weeks), and the average score reported after induction. A predefined threshold of a 10 point difference between arms was considered clinically relevant. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the global health scale, with the predefined hypothesis of no clinically relevant differences after induction between groups. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2007-001974-10, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00636168.

FINDINGS

Between July 10, 2008, and Aug 1, 2011, 951 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 475 in the ipilimumab group and 476 in the placebo group. Compliance with completing the HRQoL questionnaire was 893 (94%) of 951 patients at baseline, 693 (75%) of 924 at week 24, and 354 (51%) of 697 at week 108. Patient mean global health scores during (77·32 [SD 17·36] vs 72·96 [17·82]; p=0·00011) and after induction (76·48 [17·52] vs 72·32 [18·60]; p=0·00067) were statistically significantly different between groups but were not clinically relevant. Mean global health scores differed most between the groups at week 7 (77 [SD 19] in the placebo group vs 72 [22] in the ipilimumab group) and week 10 (77 [20] vs 70 [23]). Mean HRQoL scores differed by more than 10 points at week 10 between treatment groups for diarrhoea (7·67 [SD 17·05] for placebo vs 18·17 [28·35] for ipilimumab) and insomnia (15·17 [22·53] vs 25·60 [29·19]).

INTERPRETATION

Despite increased toxicity, which led to treatment discontinuation for most patients during the induction phase of ipilimumab administration, overall HRQoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, was similar between groups, as no clinically relevant differences (10 points or more) in global health status scores were observed during or after induction. Clinically relevant deterioration for some symptoms was observed at week 10, but after induction, no clinically relevant differences remained. Together with the primary analysis, results from this trial show that treatment with ipilimumab results in longer recurrence-free survival compared with that for treatment with placebo, with little impairment in HRQoL despite grade 3-4 investigator-reported adverse events.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Patient-Reported Physical Function Measures in Cancer Clinical Trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to monitor treatment-related symptoms and physical function decrements in cancer clinical trials. As more patients enter survivorship, it is important to capture PRO physical function throughout trials to help restore pretreatment levels of function. We completed a systematic review of PRO physical function measures used in cancer clinical trials and evaluated their psychometric properties on the basis of guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration. Five databases were searched through October 2015: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane. From an initial total of 10,233 articles, we identified 108 trials that captured PRO physical function. Within these trials, approximately 67% used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and 25% used the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36. Both the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 instruments generically satisfy most Food and Drug Administration requirements, although neither sought direct patient input as part of item development. The newer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function short form may be a brief, viable alternative. Clinicians should carefully consider the psychometric properties of these measures when incorporating PRO instrumentation into clinical trial design to provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient function.

Systematic review of psychosocial outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

New advanced melanoma therapies are associated with improved survival; however, quality of survivorship, particularly psychosocial outcomes, for patients overall and those treated with newer therapies is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

Synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence about psychosocial outcomes for advanced (stage III/IV) melanoma patients.

METHODS

Five databases were searched (01/01/1980 to 31/01/2016). Inclusion criteria were as follows: advanced melanoma patients or sub-group analysis; assessed psychosocial outcomes; and English language.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met review criteria (4 qualitative, 48 quantitative). Trials comprise mostly medical not psychosocial interventions, with psychosocial outcomes assessed within broader quality of life measures. Patients receiving chemotherapy or IFN-alpha showed decreased emotional and social function and increased distress. Five trials of newer therapies appeared to show improvements in emotional and social function. Descriptive studies suggest that patients with advanced, versus localized disease, had decreased emotional and social function and increased distress. Contributors to distress were largely unexplored, and no clear framework described coping/adjustment trajectories. Patients with advanced versus localized disease had more supportive care needs, particularly amount, quality, and timing of melanoma-related information, communication with and emotional support from clinicians. Limitations included: lack of theoretical underpinnings guiding study design; inconsistent measurement approaches; small sample sizes; non-representative sampling; and cross-sectional design.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality trial evidence is needed to clarify the impact of treatment innovations for advanced melanoma on patients' psychosocial well-being. Survivorship research and subsequent translation of that knowledge into programs and services currently lags behind gains in the medical treatment of advanced melanoma, a troubling circumstance that requires immediate and focused attention.

Ipilimumab in melanoma

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of melanoma is evolving rapidly over the past few years. Patients with BRAFv600 mutations can be treated with a combination of a BRAF-inhibitor and an MEK-inhibitor. Patients with BRAF wild-type tumors and BRAFv600 mutated tumors can be treated with immunotherapy i.e. check point inhibitors.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on the efficacy and predictive markers, safety, and pharmacoeconomics of ipilimumab in melanoma Expert commentary: Ipilimumab was the first check point inhibitor reaching the clinic, gaining FDA and EMA approval for metastatic melanoma in 2011. Ipilimumab was also approved by FDA in the adjuvant setting for patients with high risk, stage III melanoma. The anti-PD1 directed antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab are superior to single agent ipilimumab, which is no longer considered the standard first line treatment in metastatic melanoma. The addition ipilimumab to nivolumab is associated with a higher response rate and a better PFS, particularly in patients with PD-L1 negative tumors, albeit at the cost of a steep increase in grade 3-4 adverse event rate. Definitive survival data on this combination are pending and the selection of patients potentially requiring the combination and its pharmacoeconomic implications are to be elucidated.

Effect of nivolumab on health-related quality of life in patients with treatment-naïve advanced melanoma: results from the phase III CheckMate 066 study

In patients with advanced melanoma in the CheckMate 066 study, baseline health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with nivolumab was maintained over time, with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in some exploratory analyses, and no HRQoL improvements with dacarbazine. Added to the survival benefit of nivolumab, the benefit-to-risk ratio favors nivolumab over dacarbazine.

Background

Nivolumab has shown significant survival benefit and a favorable safety profile compared with dacarbazine chemotherapy among treatment-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma in the CheckMate 066 phase III study. Results from the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) analyses from CheckMate 066 are presented.

Patients and methods

HRQoL was evaluated at baseline and every 6 weeks while on treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Care (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the EuroQoL Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D). Via a multi-step statistical plan, data were analyzed descriptively, cross-sectionally, and longitudinally, adjusting for baseline covariates, in patients having baseline plus ≥1 post-baseline assessment.

Results

Baseline-adjusted completion rates for all HRQoL questionnaires across treatment arms were 65% and 70% for dacarbazine and nivolumab, respectively, and remained similar throughout treatment. The mean baseline HRQoL scores were similar for patients treated with nivolumab and dacarbazine. Baseline HRQoL levels with nivolumab were maintained over time. This exploratory analysis showed a between-arm difference in favor of nivolumab on the EQ-5D utility index and clinically meaningful EQ-5D improvements from baseline at several time points for patients receiving nivolumab. Patients treated with nivolumab did not show increased symptom burden as assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30. No HRQoL change was noted with dacarbazine patients up to week 43, although the high attrition rate after week 13 did not allow any meaningful analyses. Patients receiving nivolumab deteriorated significantly later than those receiving dacarbazine on several EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and the EQ-5D utility index.

Conclusions

In addition to prolonged survival, these exploratory HRQoL results show that nivolumab maintains baseline HRQoL levels to provide long-term quality of survival benefit, compared with dacarbazine in patients with advanced melanoma.

Clinical use of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma in Spain: towards a more consistent approach

INTRODUCTION

Ipilimumab has been approved in patients with advanced melanoma by different regulatory bodies worldwide, but its use in clinical practice is not fully consistent among oncologists. We have surveyed a representative sample of Spanish medical oncologists on issues related to the use of ipilimumab.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey was based on the Delphi method, where experts respond anonymously to two rounds of a questionnaire. Questionnaire consisted of 42 statements divided among the following eight categories: Pathology and Diagnosis; Patterns of Response; Parameters affecting Treatment Selection; Patient Profile; Sequencing of Treatment; Definition of Long-Term Survivors; Quality of Life; Concept of Immuno-oncology. The experts were asked to rate each statement on a scale of 1-9, where 1 meant "completely disagree" and 9 meant "completely agree".

RESULTS

Thirty-three oncologists responded to both rounds of the survey (62.3 % of total surveyed). On issues related to pathology and diagnosis, patterns of response, and immuno-oncology, the specialists reached a high level of consensus. There was also a high level of agreement, albeit without consensus on assessment of BRAF mutations before deciding on treatment with ipilimumab. However, there was a lower level of agreement on sequencing treatment with BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab, on predictive factors, on the use of corticosteroids, and on patient quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The disparity in many of these topics suggests that oncologists need more information on certain aspects of ipilimumab treatment. We need to define generally accepted algorithms of treatment, especially with regard to issues that were shown to be controversial or unclear.

Safety and tolerability evaluation of the use of Montanide ISA™51 as vaccine adjuvant: A systematic review

Montanide ISA™51 (ISA 51) is a vaccine adjuvant which has been tested in therapeutic and prophylactic vaccine trials. The aim of this review is to present a comprehensive examination of the safety and tolerability of ISA 51 containing vaccines. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov . Eligible studies were categorized into: (A) uncontrolled studies with non-healthy subjects, (B) controlled studies with non-healthy subjects, and (C) controlled studies with healthy subjects. Reported adverse events (AEs) were assessed. 91 studies were included in our review. Generally observed AEs included injection site reaction; injection site pain; myalgia; headache; gastro-intestinal disorders; fatigue and fever - regardless of the administration route and subject characteristic. Specific AEs, e.g. injection site reactions and rash, were more frequently reported from subjects receiving ISA 51-adjuvanted vaccines than from subjects receiving antigen or ISA 51 only. The reported AEs were mainly mild to moderate in intensity. Serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in 27% of the uncontrolled trials and 2 trials conducted with healthy subjects. Notably, 2 other trials conducted with healthy subjects were stopped due to unacceptable AEs. Some studies indicate that the mixing procedure of antigen and adjuvant might influence the occurrence of AEs. Reports on SAEs and premature termination of 2 trials advise caution when using ISA 51. Yet, AEs might be preventable by proper mixing of vaccine and adjuvant to a stable emulsion. Trials including an active control group are needed for a fair evaluation of adjuvant safety.

The ipilimumab lesson in melanoma: achieving long-term survival

The anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (anti-CTLA-4) antibody ipilimumab is the first treatment that significantly improved the survival rates of metastatic melanoma patients, marking a new era in the treatment of melanoma. During its development, a hallmark of ipilimumab therapy was the extended duration of response, achieved in 20% of patients. The follow-up of patients included in phase II and phase III trials and in expanded access programs revealed that the survival rates remained stable after 3 years. These results demonstrated that ipilimumab induces an effective anti-tumor immune response persisting after the completion of treatment, and suggested a potential remission in a subset of patients. In this article we review the development of ipilimumab and highlight the long-term results. This approach emphasizes the need to optimize the use of ipilimumab in the future, by identifying the patients most likely to achieve long term survival after ipilimumab therapy, and by developing combined therapeutic approaches involving cytotoxic agents, targeted therapies or other immunotherapies to achieve durable control in a larger proportion of patients.

Emerging immunotherapy strategies in breast cancer

Although immunogenicity is typically associated with renal cell carcinomas and melanoma, there are several compelling reasons why immune-based therapies should be explored in breast cancer. First, breast cancers express multiple putative tumor-associated antigens, such as HER-2 and MUC-1, which have been the successful focus of vaccine development over the past decade, translating into tumor-specific immune responses and, in some cases, clinical benefit. Second, passive immune strategies with anti-HER-2 antibodies, such as trastuzumab and pertuzumab, have led to survival benefits in breast cancer. Finally, the successes observed with novel immunotherapeutic strategies, such as immune checkpoint blockade and adoptive T-cell therapies in other malignancies, combined with a growing body of literature that supports an interplay between solid tumors and the immune system, indicate that these strategies have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of breast cancer.

Patient perception of the benefit of a BRAF inhibitor in metastatic melanoma: quality-of-life analyses of the BREAK-3 study comparing dabrafenib with dacarbazine

BACKGROUND

In a randomized phase III study (BREAK-3), dabrafenib showed prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (median 5.1 versus 2.7 months; hazard ratio = 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.53; P < 0.0001) compared with dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic melanoma. Assessing how these results are transformed into a real health benefit for patients is crucial.

METHODS

The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire assessed quality of life (QoL) at baseline and follow-up visits.

RESULTS

For DTIC, all functional dimensions except role dimension worsened from baseline at follow-up. For dabrafenib, all functionality dimensions remained stable relative to baseline or improved at week 6; mean change in seven symptom dimensions improved from baseline, with appetite loss, insomnia, nausea and vomiting, and pain showing the greatest improvement. In the DTIC arm, symptom dimensions were unchanged or worsened from baseline for all symptoms except pain (week 6), with the greatest exacerbations observed for fatigue and nausea and vomiting. Mixed-model-repeated measures analyses showed significant (P < 0.05) and/or clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in favor of dabrafenib for emotional and social functioning, nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea, fatigue, dyspnea, and insomnia at weeks 6 and/or 12. After crossing over to dabrafenib upon progression (n = 35), improvements in all QoL dimensions were evident after receiving dabrafenib for 6 (n = 31) to 12 (n = 25) weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This first reported QoL analysis for a BRAF inhibitor in metastatic melanoma demonstrates that the high tumor response rates and PFS superiority of dabrafenib over DTIC is not only a theoretical advantage, but also transforms in a rapid functional and symptomatic benefit for the patient. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01227889.

Checkpoint modulation in melanoma: an update on ipilimumab and future directions

Ipilimumab, an anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 antibody, was the first therapy demonstrated to improve overall survival in melanoma. Since ipilimumab's approval by the FDA in 2011, a wealth of data has amassed, helping clinicians to optimize its use. We have learned how to mitigate the adverse effects of ipilimumab, identified its effects in melanoma subpopulations such as those with brain metastases, uveal melanoma, and mucosal melanoma, discovered potential biomarkers of activity, and investigated its use in combination with other therapeutic modalities. These discoveries have paved the way for rapid development of second-generation immunomodulatory antibodies such as inhibitors of the programmed cell death 1 receptor axis. These new agents hold promise as monotherapy, but perhaps the greatest allure lies in the possibility of combining these agents in synergistic multidrug regimens.

Functional and symptom impact of trametinib versus chemotherapy in BRAF V600E advanced or metastatic melanoma: quality-of-life analyses of the METRIC study

BACKGROUND

In a randomized phase III study, trametinib prolonged progression-free survival and improved overall survival versus chemotherapy in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients' quality of life (QOL) was assessed at baseline and follow-up visits using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core QOL questionnaire.

RESULTS

In the primary efficacy population (BRAF V600E+, no brain metastases) from baseline to weeks 6 and 12, patients' global health status scores worsened by 4-5 points with chemotherapy but improved by 2-3 points with trametinib. Rapid and substantive reductions in QOL functionality (e.g. role functioning, 8-11 points at weeks 6 and 12) and symptom exacerbation (e.g. fatigue, 4-8 points; nausea and vomiting, 5 points, both at weeks 6 and 12) were observed in chemotherapy-treated patients. In contrast, trametinib-treated patients reported small improvements or slight worsening from baseline at week 12, depending on the functional dimension and symptom. The mean symptom-scale scores for chemotherapy-treated patients increased from baseline (symptoms worsened) for seven of eight symptoms at week 6 (except insomnia) and six of eight symptoms at week 12 (except dyspnea and insomnia). In contrast, at weeks 6 and 12, the mean symptom-scale scores for trametinib decreased from baseline (symptoms improved) for pain (11-12 points), insomnia (10-12 points), and appetite loss (1-5 points), whereas those for diarrhea worsened (15-16 points). Mixed-model repeated-measures analyses showed significant (P < 0.05) and/or clinically meaningful improvements (small to moderate) from baseline in favor of trametinib for global health; physical, role, and social functioning; fatigue; pain; insomnia; nausea and vomiting; constipation; dyspnea; and appetite at weeks 6 and/or 12. QOL results for the intent-to-treat population were consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

This first QOL assessment for a MEK inhibitor in metastatic melanoma demonstrated that trametinib was associated with less functional impairment, smaller declines in health status, and less exacerbation of symptoms versus chemotherapy.

Immune modulation in cancer with antibodies

Ipilimumab is the prototypical immunomodulatory antibody, approved by the FDA in 2011 for advanced melanoma on the basis of survival benefit. Since that time, we have made significant strides in optimizing this therapy: we have characterized the spectrum of immune-related adverse events and learned how to mitigate them with treatment algorithms, discovered potential biomarkers of activity, and identified the potential synergy between checkpoint modulation and other therapeutic modalities. Recent phase I trials have established the efficacy and safety of next-generation checkpoint agents, including PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, across multiple tumor types. Much work lies ahead in developing these next-generation checkpoint agents, testing them in combination, and determining how to integrate them into the treatment paradigms of various tumor types.