LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Real-world outcomes of ipilimumab plus nivolumab for advanced melanoma in the Netherlands

Photo by schwarzeweissheitenfotografie from unsplash

Abstract Background In phase III trials, the results of ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination therapy (IPI+NIVO) are promising for metastatic melanoma (MM), despite many treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs). Here,… Click to show full abstract

Abstract Background In phase III trials, the results of ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination therapy (IPI+NIVO) are promising for metastatic melanoma (MM), despite many treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs). Here, we report real-world outcomes of IPI+NIVO for MM. Methods Patients with (non-uveal) MM who received 1st-line IPI+NIVO between 2015 and 2017 were selected from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry, a nation-wide population based registry. Probability of 2nd-line treatment was estimated with competing risk analysis and overall survival (OS) with Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. Results In total, 2116 pts with MM were treated with systemic therapy of which 151 pts with 1st-line IPI+NIVO. Median age was 58yrs versus 64yrs for pts treated with other systemic therapy in 1st-line. Half of the pts treated with 1st-line IPI+NIVO had elevated LDH, 90% an ECOG PS of ≤ 1, 32% brain metastases (21% symptomatic), 87% stage IV-M1c and 42% had BRAF-mutated melanoma. Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 90 pts (60%); 39 (26%) had colitis, 37 (25%) hepatitis and 22 (13%) endocrine insufficiency. No deaths due to AEs were reported. For 66 pts who stopped IPI+NIVO because of AEs, 1-yr survival probability was 76% (95%CI: 66-87) compared to 57% (95%CI: 47-69) for the remaining 85 (56%) patients treated with 1st-line IPI+NIVO. A total of 50 (33%) pts completed all 4 courses of IPI+NIVO and 44 (29%) pts received maintenance with NIVO. The 1- and 2-yr OS probabilities (95%CI) were 66% (58-74%) and 55% (46-65%). Probability of still being in 1st-line IPI+NIVO at 1- and 2-yrs was 50% (95%CI; 42-59) and 34% (95%CI; 25-45). Cumulative incidence for 2nd-line treatment and death at 1yr were respectively 24% (95%CI: 18-33) and 27% (95%CI: 20-34). Adjusted HR for ECOG PS of ≥ 2, symptomatic brain metastases, liver metastases were respectively 3.1 (95%CI; 1.2-8.3), 2.0 (95%CI; 1.0-3.8), 2.2 (95%CI; 1.2-4.2). HR for BRAF-wildtype status was 0.5 (95%CI; 0.2-0.9). Conclusions Half of pts receiving 1st-line IPI+NIVO for MM had elevated LDH, one third brain metastases and a majority ECOG PS ≤ 1. Nevertheless, OS is encouraging especially in pts who stopped treatment due to AEs. With appropriate patient selection in real-world, promising results can be achieved with 1st-line IPI+NIVO. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure A.J.M. van den Eertwegh: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen. A.C.J. van Akkooi: Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD - Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD - Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: 4SC. J.W. de Groot: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck. G.A.P. Hospers: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck. E. Kapiteijn: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck. K.P.M. Suijkerbuijk: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (institution): Roche. A.A.M. Van der Veldt: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen. J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: AZ; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: Celsius Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Serono; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Neon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: AIMM; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunocore. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Keywords: ipi nivo; bms advisory; advisory consultancy; 1st line; consultancy

Journal Title: Annals of Oncology
Year Published: 2019

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.