P Mohr1, P Ascierto2, A Arance3, G McArthur4,5, A Hernaez6, P Kaskel7, R Shinde8, K Stevinson8. 1. Elbe-Klinikum Buxtehude, Buxtehude, Germany. 2. Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. 3. Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 5. University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia. 6. Mapi, Stockholm, Sweden. 7. MSD SHARP & DOHME GMBH, Haar, Germany. 8. Merck & Co. Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes among advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapies including ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 antibody approved since 2011. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ipilimumab and postipilimumab treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma in Australia, Germany, Italy and Spain, following regulatory approval. METHODS: Retrospective multicentre, multinational, observational chart review study. Data were extracted from the start of ipilimumab therapy until the end of at least 40 weeks of follow-up, or death. RESULTS: Data from 371 patients (Australia, 103; Germany, 152; Italy, 76; Spain, 40) were analysed. Mean age was 65 years; 62% were male. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was 0 or 1 for 94%. In 67%, ipilimumab was initially received as second-line or later therapy. Patients received on average 3.4 ipilimumab doses. The ipilimumab-refractory cohort comprised of 226 patients. Of these, 17% in Australia, 47% in Germany, 29% in Italy and 14% in Spain received another antimelanoma treatment after ipilimumab including chemotherapy in 26% and BRAF/other kinase inhibitors in 11%. Ipilimumab-refractory patients who received postipilimumab treatment showed a 40% reduced hazard of dying than those not receiving treatment after ipilimumab (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43-0.83), after adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: During the time observed, ipilimumab was mainly used as second-line or later therapy. A significant proportion of patients received postipilimumab therapy, most of which was chemotherapy. Nevertheless, overall survival following progression on ipilimumab treatment remained poor, highlighting the need for research to develop more effective end-of-life treatment options.
BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes among advanced melanomapatients treated with immunotherapies including ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 antibody approved since 2011. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ipilimumab and postipilimumab treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma in Australia, Germany, Italy and Spain, following regulatory approval. METHODS: Retrospective multicentre, multinational, observational chart review study. Data were extracted from the start of ipilimumab therapy until the end of at least 40 weeks of follow-up, or death. RESULTS: Data from 371 patients (Australia, 103; Germany, 152; Italy, 76; Spain, 40) were analysed. Mean age was 65 years; 62% were male. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was 0 or 1 for 94%. In 67%, ipilimumab was initially received as second-line or later therapy. Patients received on average 3.4 ipilimumab doses. The ipilimumab-refractory cohort comprised of 226 patients. Of these, 17% in Australia, 47% in Germany, 29% in Italy and 14% in Spain received another antimelanoma treatment after ipilimumab including chemotherapy in 26% and BRAF/other kinase inhibitors in 11%. Ipilimumab-refractory patients who received postipilimumab treatment showed a 40% reduced hazard of dying than those not receiving treatment after ipilimumab (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43-0.83), after adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: During the time observed, ipilimumab was mainly used as second-line or later therapy. A significant proportion of patients received postipilimumab therapy, most of which was chemotherapy. Nevertheless, overall survival following progression on ipilimumab treatment remained poor, highlighting the need for research to develop more effective end-of-life treatment options.
Authors: Alexander Liede; Rohini K Hernandez; Sally W Wade; Ronghai Bo; Nathan C Nussbaum; Elizabeth Ahern; William C Dougall; Mark J Smyth Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: I Márquez-Rodas; A Arance; A Berrocal; C L Larios; J Curto-García; I X Campos-Tapias; A B Blanca; S Martin-Algarra Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 3.405