Marta Polkowska1, Paweł Ekk-Cierniakowski2, Edyta Czepielewska3, Małgorzata Kozłowska-Wojciechowska3. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Warsaw, Banacha St. 1, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland. marta.polkowska@wum.edu.pl. 2. Collegium of Economic Analysis, Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Warsaw, Banacha St. 1, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the management of melanoma, BRAF inhibitors yield fast disease control; however, the duration of response does not last very long. Ipilimumab-an anti-CTLA4 antibody on the other hand-provides longer-lasting results of treatment but achieves less favorable responses. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of novel drugs for advanced melanoma in daily routine practice. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on all Polish patients (1170 patients), diagnosed with advanced metastatic melanoma, treated with the following drugs: vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and ipilimumab. The antitumor efficacy of these agents was retrospectively assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors in the case of BRAF inhibitors and by Immune-Related Response Criteria in the case of ipilimumab therapy. Adverse events were assessed in relation to the morphologic parameters of blood, nephrotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity. RESULTS: The overall response to treatment with BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) was similar with a slightly better outcome in the group treated with vemurafenib. Compared to clinical trials, the objective response rate was slightly worse for both BRAF inhibitors (30% and 42% for dabrafenib and vemurafenib, respectively), as well as the immune-related response for ipilimumab (1%). There was no significant difference in patient's response rates regardless of what lines of treatment (first, second, or next) vemurafenib was applied in. A few severe adverse events (mostly anemia and hyperbilirubinemia) were observed during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of evidence in responses observed regardless of what line of treatment vemurafenib was applied in suggests there is no clinical reason for restricting BRAF inhibitors to only the first line of therapy. Our study confirms that novel agents brought about a major advancement in the management of melanoma. In line with literature, BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab significantly improved the antitumor response rate with manageable adverse events.
PURPOSE: In the management of melanoma, BRAF inhibitors yield fast disease control; however, the duration of response does not last very long. Ipilimumab-an anti-CTLA4 antibody on the other hand-provides longer-lasting results of treatment but achieves less favorable responses. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of novel drugs for advanced melanoma in daily routine practice. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on all Polish patients (1170 patients), diagnosed with advanced metastatic melanoma, treated with the following drugs: vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and ipilimumab. The antitumor efficacy of these agents was retrospectively assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors in the case of BRAF inhibitors and by Immune-Related Response Criteria in the case of ipilimumab therapy. Adverse events were assessed in relation to the morphologic parameters of blood, nephrotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity. RESULTS: The overall response to treatment with BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) was similar with a slightly better outcome in the group treated with vemurafenib. Compared to clinical trials, the objective response rate was slightly worse for both BRAF inhibitors (30% and 42% for dabrafenib and vemurafenib, respectively), as well as the immune-related response for ipilimumab (1%). There was no significant difference in patient's response rates regardless of what lines of treatment (first, second, or next) vemurafenib was applied in. A few severe adverse events (mostly anemia and hyperbilirubinemia) were observed during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of evidence in responses observed regardless of what line of treatment vemurafenib was applied in suggests there is no clinical reason for restricting BRAF inhibitors to only the first line of therapy. Our study confirms that novel agents brought about a major advancement in the management of melanoma. In line with literature, BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab significantly improved the antitumor response rate with manageable adverse events.
Authors: Paul B Chapman; Axel Hauschild; Caroline Robert; John B Haanen; Paolo Ascierto; James Larkin; Reinhard Dummer; Claus Garbe; Alessandro Testori; Michele Maio; David Hogg; Paul Lorigan; Celeste Lebbe; Thomas Jouary; Dirk Schadendorf; Antoni Ribas; Steven J O'Day; Jeffrey A Sosman; John M Kirkwood; Alexander M M Eggermont; Brigitte Dreno; Keith Nolop; Jiang Li; Betty Nelson; Jeannie Hou; Richard J Lee; Keith T Flaherty; Grant A McArthur Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Axel Hauschild; Jean-Jacques Grob; Lev V Demidov; Thomas Jouary; Ralf Gutzmer; Michael Millward; Piotr Rutkowski; Christian U Blank; Wilson H Miller; Eckhart Kaempgen; Salvador Martín-Algarra; Boguslawa Karaszewska; Cornelia Mauch; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Anne-Marie Martin; Suzanne Swann; Patricia Haney; Beloo Mirakhur; Mary E Guckert; Vicki Goodman; Paul B Chapman Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Grant A McArthur; Paul B Chapman; Caroline Robert; James Larkin; John B Haanen; Reinhard Dummer; Antoni Ribas; David Hogg; Omid Hamid; Paolo A Ascierto; Claus Garbe; Alessandro Testori; Michele Maio; Paul Lorigan; Celeste Lebbé; Thomas Jouary; Dirk Schadendorf; Stephen J O'Day; John M Kirkwood; Alexander M Eggermont; Brigitte Dréno; Jeffrey A Sosman; Keith T Flaherty; Ming Yin; Ivor Caro; Suzanne Cheng; Kerstin Trunzer; Axel Hauschild Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jeffrey A Sosman; Kevin B Kim; Lynn Schuchter; Rene Gonzalez; Anna C Pavlick; Jeffrey S Weber; Grant A McArthur; Thomas E Hutson; Stergios J Moschos; Keith T Flaherty; Peter Hersey; Richard Kefford; Donald Lawrence; Igor Puzanov; Karl D Lewis; Ravi K Amaravadi; Bartosz Chmielowski; H Jeffrey Lawrence; Yu Shyr; Fei Ye; Jiang Li; Keith B Nolop; Richard J Lee; Andrew K Joe; Antoni Ribas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F Aya; A Fernandez-Martinez; L Gaba; I Victoria; M Tosca; E Pineda; P Gascon; A Prat; A Arance Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Lisa Zimmer; Thomas K Eigentler; Felix Kiecker; Jan Simon; Jochen Utikal; Peter Mohr; Carola Berking; Eckhart Kämpgen; Edgar Dippel; Rudolf Stadler; Axel Hauschild; Michael Fluck; Patrick Terheyden; Rainer Rompel; Carmen Loquai; Zeinab Assi; Claus Garbe; Dirk Schadendorf Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: John E Hanks; Kevin J Kovatch; S Ahmed Ali; Emily Roberts; Alison B Durham; Joshua D Smith; Carol R Bradford; Kelly M Malloy; Philip S Boonstra; Christopher D Lao; Scott A McLean Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Prakrit R Kumar; Jamie A Moore; Kristian M Bowles; Stuart A Rushworth; Marc D Moncrieff Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 7.640