Elyse Shuk1, Alexander N Shoushtari2,3, Jason Luke4, Michael A Postow2,3, Maggie Callahan2,3, James J Harding2,3, Katherine G Roth5, Marisa Flavin6, Adrian Granobles3, Jana Christian7, Geoffrey Gold8, Maria Schoenhammer9, Mallorie Gordon1, Nicholas Cimaglia10, Robert Dyson11, Noah Goodman-Davis3, Marta N Colgan3, Itisha S Jefferson3, Rodrigo Munhoz12, Sandra D'Angelo2,10, Jedd Wolchok2,3, Paul Chapman2,3, Ping Chi2,3, Richard D Carvajal13, Jennifer L Hay1. 1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave., 7th floor, New York, NY, 10022, USA. 2. Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Ave., New York, 10065, NY, USA. 3. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 4. University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. 5. Mather Hospital, 12 Medical Drive, Suite D, Port Jefferson Station, NY, 11776, USA. 6. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, 300 1st Ave., Charlestown, MA, 02113, USA. 7. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 8. Hofstra University, 1000 Fulton Ave, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA. 9. The Gordon F. Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University, Hy-Weinberg Center, 1 South Avenue, Room 302, P.O. Box 701, Garden City, NY, 11530-0701, USA. 10. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66th Street, Room 1251, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 11. Mount Sinai Beth Israel, 325 West 15th Street, Room G11, New York, NY, 10011, USA. 12. Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 251. 5th floor, São Paulo, 01246-000, Brazil. 13. Columbia University Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Avenue, HIP 9, New York, NY, 10032, USA. rdc2150@cumc.columbia.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ipilimumab was the first FDA-approved agent for advanced melanoma to improve survival and represents a paradigm shift in melanoma and cancer treatment. Its unique toxicity profile and kinetics of treatment response raise novel patient education challenges. We assessed patient perceptions of ipilimumab therapy across the treatment trajectory. METHODS: Four patient cohorts were assessed at different time points relative to treatment initiation: (1) prior to initiation of ipilimumab (n = 10), (2) at weeks 10-12 before restaging studies (n = 11), (3) at week 12 following restaging studies indicating progression of disease (n = 10), and (4) at week 12 following restaging studies indicating either a radiographic response or disease stability (n = 10). Patients participated in a semistructured qualitative interview to assess their experiences with ipilimumab. Quality of life was assessed via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and its Melanoma-specific module. RESULTS: Perceived quality of life was comparable across cohorts, and a majority of the sample understood side effects from ipilimumab and the potential for a delayed treatment response. Patients without progression of disease following restaging studies at week 12 held more positive views regarding ipilimumab compared to patients who had progressed. CONCLUSION: Patients generally regarded ipilimumab positively despite the risk of unique toxicities and potential for delayed therapeutic responses; however, those with progression expressed uncertainty regarding whether taking ipilimumab was worthwhile. Physician communication practices and patient education regarding realistic expectations for therapeutic benefit as well as unique toxicities associated with ipilimumab should be developed so that patients can better understand the possible outcomes from treatment.
PURPOSE:Ipilimumab was the first FDA-approved agent for advanced melanoma to improve survival and represents a paradigm shift in melanoma and cancer treatment. Its unique toxicity profile and kinetics of treatment response raise novel patient education challenges. We assessed patient perceptions of ipilimumab therapy across the treatment trajectory. METHODS: Four patient cohorts were assessed at different time points relative to treatment initiation: (1) prior to initiation of ipilimumab (n = 10), (2) at weeks 10-12 before restaging studies (n = 11), (3) at week 12 following restaging studies indicating progression of disease (n = 10), and (4) at week 12 following restaging studies indicating either a radiographic response or disease stability (n = 10). Patients participated in a semistructured qualitative interview to assess their experiences with ipilimumab. Quality of life was assessed via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and its Melanoma-specific module. RESULTS: Perceived quality of life was comparable across cohorts, and a majority of the sample understood side effects from ipilimumab and the potential for a delayed treatment response. Patients without progression of disease following restaging studies at week 12 held more positive views regarding ipilimumab compared to patients who had progressed. CONCLUSION:Patients generally regarded ipilimumab positively despite the risk of unique toxicities and potential for delayed therapeutic responses; however, those with progression expressed uncertainty regarding whether taking ipilimumab was worthwhile. Physician communication practices and patient education regarding realistic expectations for therapeutic benefit as well as unique toxicities associated with ipilimumab should be developed so that patients can better understand the possible outcomes from treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
FACT-G; FACT-M; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Patient-reported quality of life; Qualitative research
Authors: Caroline Robert; Luc Thomas; Igor Bondarenko; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey Weber; Claus Garbe; Celeste Lebbe; Jean-François Baurain; Alessandro Testori; Jean-Jacques Grob; Neville Davidson; Jon Richards; Michele Maio; Axel Hauschild; Wilson H Miller; Pere Gascon; Michal Lotem; Kaan Harmankaya; Ramy Ibrahim; Stephen Francis; Tai-Tsang Chen; Rachel Humphrey; Axel Hoos; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dirk Schadendorf; F Stephen Hodi; Caroline Robert; Jeffrey S Weber; Kim Margolin; Omid Hamid; Debra Patt; Tai-Tsang Chen; David M Berman; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Steven J O'Day; David F McDermott; Robert W Weber; Jeffrey A Sosman; John B Haanen; Rene Gonzalez; Caroline Robert; Dirk Schadendorf; Jessica C Hassel; Wallace Akerley; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jose Lutzky; Paul Lorigan; Julia M Vaubel; Gerald P Linette; David Hogg; Christian H Ottensmeier; Celeste Lebbé; Christian Peschel; Ian Quirt; Joseph I Clark; Jedd D Wolchok; Jeffrey S Weber; Jason Tian; Michael J Yellin; Geoffrey M Nichol; Axel Hoos; Walter J Urba Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ajay V Maker; Giao Q Phan; Peter Attia; James C Yang; Richard M Sherry; Suzanne L Topalian; Udai S Kammula; Richard E Royal; Leah R Haworth; Catherine Levy; David Kleiner; Sharon A Mavroukakis; Michael Yellin; Steven A Rosenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2005-10-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: C M Balch; S J Soong; J E Gershenwald; J F Thompson; D S Reintgen; N Cascinelli; M Urist; K M McMasters; M I Ross; J M Kirkwood; M B Atkins; J A Thompson; D G Coit; D Byrd; R Desmond; Y Zhang; P Y Liu; G H Lyman; A Morabito Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Bart Neyns; Gerald Linette; Sylvie Negrier; Jose Lutzky; Luc Thomas; William Waterfield; Dirk Schadendorf; Michael Smylie; Troy Guthrie; Jean-Jacques Grob; Jason Chesney; Kevin Chin; Kun Chen; Axel Hoos; Steven J O'Day; Celeste Lebbé Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: D F Cella; D S Tulsky; G Gray; B Sarafian; E Linn; A Bonomi; M Silberman; S B Yellen; P Winicour; J Brannon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 44.544