Clinical and economic outcomes associated with treatment sequences in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma

Cost per outcome of nivolumab + relatlimab vs BRAF + MEK inhibitor combinations for first-line treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines list combination immunotherapy as the preferred first-line (1L) treatment for unresectable or metastatic melanoma over BRAF and MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy, regardless of BRAF mutation status. However, the economic impact of 1L treatment with nivolumab plus relatlimab (NIVO + RELA) vs BRAFi/MEKi therapies for BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the health care costs, cost per progression-free life-year (PFLY), and cost per life-year (LY) of NIVO + RELA vs dabrafenib plus trametinib (DAB + TRAM), encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (VEM + COBI) as 1L treatment for BRAF-mutated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

METHODS

A cost-per-outcome model compared the economic value of NIVO + RELA vs each BRAFi/MEKi therapy. Clinical inputs were derived from previous matching-adjusted indirect comparisons using individual patient data from the BRAF-mutant subgroup of RELATIVITY-047 and published data pooled from COMBI-d, COMBI-v, COLUMBUS, and coBRIM. LYs, PFLYs per investigator, and treatment duration were estimated using the restricted mean survival time. Health care costs (2024 US dollars), including drug acquisition and administration costs, disease management costs over the preprogression and postprogression periods, and adverse event management costs, were calculated over 5 years. Several scenario analyses were performed, including adding subsequent treatment costs.

RESULTS

Over 5 years, NIVO + RELA was associated with improved PFLYs and LYs compared with DAB + TRAM (mean PFLY: 1.94 vs 1.82 years, mean LY: 3.41 vs 2.77 years), ENCO + BINI (1.87 vs 1.78 years and 3.40 vs 2.91 years, respectively), and VEM + COBI (2.12 vs 1.80 years and 3.39 vs 2.63 years). The estimated total costs over 5 years were lower for NIVO + RELA vs DAB + TRAM ($300,479 vs $519,770), ENCO + BINI ($343,996 vs $572,556), and VEM + COBI ($296,361 vs $317,851). Main cost drivers were drug acquisition and administration costs. NIVO + RELA had lower costs per PFLY and per LY than DAB + TRAM ($155,107 vs $285,617 and $88,203 vs $187,699, respectively); ENCO + BINI ($183,628 vs $322,113 and $101,151 vs $196,924); and VEM + COBI ($139,688 vs $176,645 and $87,315 vs $121,086). The sensitivity analyses' results supported the base-case results.

CONCLUSIONS

NIVO + RELA showed improved LYs and PFLYs at lower cost than all 3 BRAFi/MEKi comparators over 5 years. These results support the economic value of NIVO + RELA for patients with previously untreated, BRAF-mutated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Patient-level simulation models in cancer care: a systematic review

Background

Patient-level simulation (PLS) models overcome some major limitations of conventional cohort models and have broad applicability in healthcare, yet limited knowledge exists about their potential in cancer care.

Objectives

This systematic review aims to: (1) describe the application areas of PLS models in cancer care, (2) identify commonly used model structures, (3) evaluate the quality of reporting based on established guidelines, and (4) critically discuss the potential and limitations of PLS models in this context.

Methods

A systematic literature search was completed in Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE and EconLit. Reasons underlying the use of PLS models were identified with a conventional inductive content analysis and reporting quality was assessed with an 18-item checklist based on the ISPOR-SMDM guidelines.

Results

The number of publications increased over time and most studies used state-transition microsimulation (49.25%) or discrete event simulation (48.51%). Two main application areas could be discerned, namely disease progression modelling (DPM) (78.36%) and health and care systems operation (HCSO) (21.64%). In the DPM domain, the use of PLS models was mainly motivated by the need to represent patient heterogeneity and history. In the HCSO domain, PLS models were used to better understand and improve cancer care delivery. Average reporting quality was 65.2% and did not improve over time.

Conclusion

PLS models can be used to simulate the progression of cancer and to model cancer care delivery. In the DPM domain more direct comparisons with cohort models are required to establish the relative advantages of PLS models and in the HCSO domain the impact on clinical practice needs to be systematically assessed. Furthermore, adherence to the ISPOR-SMDM guidelines should be improved.

The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Genomic medicine offers an unprecedented opportunity to improve cancer outcomes through prevention, early detection and precision therapy. Health policy makers worldwide are developing strategies to embed genomic medicine in routine cancer care. Successful translation of genomic medicine, however, remains slow. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise published evidence on the cost effectiveness of genomic medicine in cancer control. The insights could support efforts to accelerate access to cost-effective applications of human genomics.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024480842), and the review was conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. The search was run in four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and EconLit. Full economic evaluations of genomic technologies at any stage of cancer care, and published after 2018 and in English, were included for data extraction.

RESULTS

The review identified 137 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Most economic evaluations focused on the prevention and early detection stage (n = 44; 32%), the treatment stage (n = 36; 26%), and managing relapsed, refractory or progressive disease (n = 51, 37%). Convergent cost-effectiveness evidence was identified for the prevention and early detection of breast and ovarian cancer, and for colorectal and endometrial cancers. For cancer treatment, the use of genomic testing for guiding therapy was highly likely to be cost effective for breast and blood cancers. Studies reported that genomic medicine was cost effective for advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. There was insufficient or mixed evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of genomic medicine in the management of other cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review mapped out the cost-effectiveness evidence of genomic medicine across the cancer care continuum. Gaps in the literature mean that potentially cost-effective uses of genomic medicine in cancer control, for example rare cancers or cancers of unknown primary, may be being overlooked. Evidence on the value of information and budget impact are critical, and advancements in methods to include distributional effects, system capacity and consumer preferences will be valuable. Expanding the current cost-effectiveness evidence base is essential to enable the sustainable and equitable translation of genomic medicine.

Adverse Event Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anticancer Drugs: A Systematic Review

Importance

Accurately quantifying adverse event (AE) costs is essential for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of anticancer drugs. Misestimates in AE costs may significantly affect cost-effectiveness conclusions.

Objective

To assess whether AE cost quantification in anticancer drug CEAs accurately reflects the true cost of AEs and to evaluate whether replacing AE costs with actual values affects cost-effectiveness conclusions.

Evidence Review

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Tufts CEA databases was conducted from October 24 to December 1, 2023, with an additional search from November 4 to 10, 2024, for English-language CEAs and claims-based studies examining AE costs for anticancer drugs published between January 2003 and December 2023. Claims-based AE costs were considered to represent actual values. AE costs were compared in absolute terms and as a proportion of total medical costs. Impact of replacing CEA AE cost estimates with actual values for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) was examined at thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). AE cost differences between CEA estimates and actual values and their impact on ICERs were the main outcomes.

Findings

The sample included 11 claims-based US studies with 34 022 patients and 102 US payer-perspective CEAs. AE cost estimates in CEAs were consistently lower than actual values, with a median difference of 9.73% (IQR, 5.15%-27.22%; P = .002) in proportion of total medical costs and of $17 201 (IQR, $13 365-$48 970; P = .03) in absolute costs. Adjusting AE costs led to an ICER change of $42 656 per QALY, altering cost-effectiveness conclusions in 8 of 17 cases (47.1%). Among the 102 CEAs, 41 (40.2%) did not report AE types; of the remaining 61 (59.8%), 48 (78.7%) focused on treatment-related AEs instead of all-cause AEs. Of all CEAs, 79 (77.5%) considered grade 3 or higher AEs, ignoring grades 1 and 2. Only 13 studies (12.7%) accounted for AE-related dose reductions or interruptions, 87 (85.3%) did not consider postprogression AE costs, and 77 (82.8%) assumed AEs occurred only in the first treatment cycle. Substantial variability was observed in both drug AE and unit AE costs across studies.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of AE costs in oncology CEAs, AE costs were frequently underestimated, potentially altering cost-effectiveness conclusions. Key problems included incomplete AE inclusion, inaccurate AE cost estimates, overlooked long-term AEs, and unaccounted dose modifications. Best practices and standardized guidelines should be established to improve AE cost quantification in oncology CEAs.

Development of a Decision Model to Estimate the Outcomes of Treatment Sequences in Advanced Melanoma

BackgroundA decision model for patients with advanced melanoma to estimate outcomes of a wide range of treatment sequences is lacking.ObjectivesTo develop a decision model for advanced melanoma to estimate outcomes of treatment sequences in clinical practice with the aim of supporting decision making. The article focuses on methodology and long-term health benefits.MethodsA semi-Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed. Transitions describing disease progression, time to next treatment, and mortality were estimated from real-world data (RWD) as a function of time since starting treatment or disease progression and patient characteristics. Transitions were estimated separately for melanoma with and without a BRAF mutation and for patients with favorable and intermediate prognostic factors. All transitions can be adjusted using relative effectiveness of treatments derived from a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The duration of treatment effect can be adjusted to obtain outcomes under different assumptions.ResultsThe model distinguishes 3 lines of systemic treatment for melanoma with a BRAF mutation and 2 lines of systemic treatment for melanoma without a BRAF mutation. Life expectancy ranged from 7.8 to 12.0 years in patients with favorable prognostic factors and from 5.1 to 8.7 years in patients with intermediate prognostic factors when treated with sequences consisting of targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Scenario analyses illustrate how estimates of life expectancy depend on the duration of treatment effect.ConclusionThe model is flexible because it can accommodate different treatments and treatment sequences, and the duration of treatment effects and the transitions influenced by treatment can be adjusted. We show how using RWD and data from RCTs can harness advantages of both data sources, guiding the development of future decision models.HighlightsThe model is flexible because it can accommodate different treatments and treatment sequences, and the duration of treatment effects as well as the transitions that are influenced by treatment can be adjusted.The long-term health benefits of treatment sequences depend on the place of different therapies within a treatment sequence.Assumptions about the duration of relative treatment effects influence the estimates of long-term health benefits.We show how the use of real-world data and data from randomized controlled trials harness the advantages of both data sources, guiding the development of future decision models.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences for BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma in the Netherlands using a health economic model

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences for patients with advanced melanoma with a BRAF mutation in the Netherlands from a societal perspective.

METHODS

A semi-Markov model with a life-time horizon has been used to evaluate cost-effectiveness of 21 treatment sequences. Real-world data from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR) were used to estimate time to progression, next treatment and death. Utilities by health state as well as hospital costs, health care costs outside the hospital, patient and family costs and productivity costs were also derived from the DMTR. Drug costs were estimated based on the recommended dose and duration of treatment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were presented as incremental costs per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Health benefits of treatment sequences consisting of targeted therapies and immunotherapies vary between 2.3 and 5.8 QALYs gained per patient when compared to chemotherapy. The increase in costs varies between €112,000 and €383,000. The efficiency frontier consists of nivolumab in the first line followed by ipilimumab in the second line (ICERs of €42,000/QALY and €44,000/QALY), nivolumab in the first line followed by encorafenib plus binimetinib in the second line (ICERs of €71,000/QALY and €68,000/QALY) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the first line followed by encorafenib plus binimetinib in the second line (ICERs of €74,000/QALY and €76,000/QALY). The first treatment given within a sequence as well as assumptions regarding treatment duration have a substantial impact on cost-effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The ICERs can be considered cost-effective at different cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Targeting Matrix Metalloproteinases and Their Inhibitors in Melanoma

Malignant melanoma is one of the most important dermatological neoplasms. The high mortality rate associated with this skin disease is primarily due to the occurrence of metastases, while the diagnosis and treatment of melanoma in its early stages has a favorable prognosis. Early detection is crucial because the success of treatment is directly related to the depth of cancerous growth. The family of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) plays a critical role in the initiation and progression of melanoma. Prominent MMPs, including MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-3, MMP-9, MMP-13, and MMP-14, have been shown to significantly contribute to the development of melanoma. The tumor microenvironment, particularly the extracellular matrix (ECM), has emerged as a critical factor in modulating cancer progression. This review focuses on the role of matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in ECM degradation and the subsequent progression of melanoma, as well as their potential as therapeutic targets.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy

OBJECTIVE

To identify real-world patterns of first line treatment, treatment sequence and outcomes for older adults diagnosed with advanced melanoma who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

METHODS

The study population included older adults (ages 65+) diagnosed with unresectable or metastatic melanoma between 2012 and 2017 and who received first line immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Using the linked surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data, we described patterns of first line treatment and treatment sequence through 2018. We used descriptive statistics to report patient and provider characteristics by first line treatment receipt and changes in first line therapy use over calendar time. We also described overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) by first line treatment using the Kaplan-Meier method. For patterns of treatment sequence, we reported commonly observed treatment switch patterns by treatment sub-category and calendar year.

RESULTS

The analyses included 584 patients (mean age = 76.3 years). A majority (n = 502) received first line immunotherapy. There was a sustained increase in immunotherapy uptake, most notably from 2015 to 2016. The estimated median OS and TTF were longer with first line immunotherapy than with targeted therapy. Individuals treated with CTLA-4 + PD-1 inhibitors had the longest median OS (28.4 months). The most common treatment switch pattern was from a first line CTLA-4 inhibitor to a second line PD-1 inhibitor.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings inform understanding of treatment patterns of currently used immunotherapies and targeted therapies in older adults with advanced melanoma. Immunotherapy use has increased steadily with PD-1 inhibitors becoming a dominant treatment option since 2015.

Treatment-Free Survival After Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab vs Nivolumab-Ipilimumab for Advanced Melanoma

Importance

Treatment-free survival (TFS) represents an alternative time-to-event end point, accurately characterizing time spent free of systemic therapy, providing a more patient-centric view of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimens. There remains a lack of studies evaluating TFS outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma who are receiving immunotherapy, especially outside of the clinical trial setting.

Objective

To evaluate TFS outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy outside of a clinical trial setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2020, was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Data analysis was performed in August 2022.

Exposures

Patients received standard-of-care, first-line ICI therapy treatment regimens including single-agent nivolumab, single-agent pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab-nivolumab.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Treatment-free survival was defined as the difference in the 36-month restricted mean survival time between 2 conventional survival end points: (1) time from treatment initiation to ICI cessation, death, or censoring at last follow-up and (2) time from treatment initiation to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, death, or censoring at last follow-up.

Results

A total of 316 patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line nivolumab (n = 51; median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-78 years]; 31 men [60.8%]), pembrolizumab (n = 158; median age, 69 years [IQR, 60-78 years]; 112 men [70.9%]), or combination nivolumab-ipilimumab (n = 107; median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-60 years]; 72 men [67.3%]) were included. Treatment groups were similar with regard to sex, primary tumor location, and presence of metastasis, although patients receiving combination nivolumab-ipilimumab had a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, were younger, and were more likely to be BRAF V600E positive than those receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.0 months]) compared with nivolumab (8.9 months [95% CI, 4.4-13.5 months]) and pembrolizumab (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-13.8 months]). During the 36-month follow-up interval, patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab spent 34.4% of their time (12.4 of 36 months) not receiving systemic anticancer treatments compared with 30.8% (11.1 of 36 months) and 24.7% (8.9 of 36 months) of the time for the pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment groups, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy suggests that TFS represents a patient-centric, informative end point. Patients treated with combination nivolumab-ipilimumab spent more time alive and free from systemic anticancer therapy than those treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone.

Sequencing Targeted and Immune Therapy in BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Lessons Learned

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The treatment strategy for BRAF-mutated melanoma remains unsatisfactory, although the advent of immune checkpoint inhibition has improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma. This article reports current evidence on the efficacy and safety of sequential immunotherapy with targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. It discusses criteria for the use of available options in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Targeted therapy provides rapid disease control in a relatively high proportion of patients, although the development of secondary resistance limits the duration of responses; in contrast, immunotherapy may induce slow but more durable responses in a subset of patients. Therefore, the identification of a combination strategy for the use of these therapies seems a promising perspective. Currently, inconsistent data have been obtained, but most studies indicate that the administration of BRAFi/MEKi prior to immune checkpoint inhibitors appears to reduce the efficacy of immunotherapy. On the contrary, several clinical and real-life studies suggest that frontline immunotherapy with subsequent targeted therapy may be associated with better tumor control than immunotherapy alone. Larger clinical studies are ongoing to confirm the efficacy and safety of this sequencing strategy for treating BRAF-mutated melanoma with immunotherapy followed by targeted therapy.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.

Immunotherapy in Melanoma: Recent Advances and Future Directions

The use of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced and high-risk melanoma has led to a striking improvement in outcomes. Although the incidence of melanoma has continued to rise, median survival has improved from approximately 6 months to nearly 6 years for patients with advanced inoperable stage IV disease. Recent understanding of the tumor microenvironment and its interplay with the immune system has led to the explosive development of novel immunotherapy treatments. Since the approval of the therapeutic cytokines interleukin-2 and interferon alfa-2 in the 1990s, the development of novel immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), oncolytic virus therapy, and modulators of the tumor microenvironment have given way to a new era in melanoma treatment. Monoclonal antibodies directed at programmed cell death protein 1 receptor (PD-1) and its ligand (PDL-1), cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), and lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) have provided robust activation of the adaptive immune system, restoring immune surveillance leading to host tumor recognition and destruction. Multiple other immunomodulatory therapeutics are under investigation to overcome resistance to ICI therapy, including the toll-like receptor-9 (TLR-9) and 7/8 (TLR-7/8) agonists, stimulator of interferon genes (STING) agonists, and fecal microbiota transplantation. In this review, we focus on the recent advances in immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma and provide an update on novel therapies currently under investigation.

Injectable Polypeptide Hydrogel Depots Containing Dual Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Doxorubicin for Improved Tumor Immunotherapy and Post-Surgical Tumor Treatment

In this work, we developed a strategy for local chemo-immunotherapy through simultaneous incorporation of dual immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) antibodies, anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (aCTLA-4) and anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (aPD-1), and a chemotherapy drug, doxorubicin (Dox), into a thermo-gelling polypeptide hydrogel. The hydrogel encapsulating Dox or IgG model antibody showed sustained release profiles for more than 12 days in vitro, and the drug release and hydrogel degradation were accelerated in the presence of enzymes. In comparison to free drug solutions or hydrogels containing Dox or antibodies only, the Dox/aCTLA-4/aPD-1 co-loaded hydrogel achieved improved tumor suppression efficiency, strengthened antitumor immune response, and prolonged animal survival time after peritumoral injection into mice bearing B16F10 melanoma. Additionally, after injection of Dox/aCTLA-4/aPD-1 co-loaded hydrogel into the surgical site following tumor resection, a significantly enhanced inhibition on tumor reoccurrence was demonstrated. Thus, the polypeptide hydrogel-based chemo-immunotherapy strategy has potential in anti-tumor therapy and the prevention of tumor reoccurrence.

Sequencing of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab and Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib for Untreated BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma (SECOMBIT): A Randomized, Three-Arm, Open-Label Phase II Trial

PURPOSE

Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma.

METHODS

SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication.

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged.

CONCLUSION

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.

Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134

PURPOSE

Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated.

CONCLUSION

Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Global trends in the health economics field of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: A bibliometric and visualized study

Inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 and its associated ligand (PD-L1) are widely used in cancer treatment. However, medical costs and benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors need attention owing to differences in response rates among individuals. This study explored global trends in the health economics field of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors to enhance their worldwide development. Bibliometric analysis of all documents currently indexed in Web of Science Core Collection from inception to 2022 was performed. Publication year, authors, countries, institutes, and journals were analyzed by Bibliometrix package (version 3.2.1) in R (version 4.1.3). CiteSpace (version 6.1.R6) and VOSviewer (version 1.6.18) were used to analyze burst words, co-authorship of institutes, co-cited journals, and co-cited references, while figures were mainly drawn by Ggplot2 package (version 3.3.5) in R (version 4.1.3) and SCImago Graphica Beta (version 1.0.23). A total of 2020 documents related to the health economics of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were identified, and 1,204 documents met the selection criteria for inclusion in the study. A rapid increase in the number of publications since 2019 was observed, but this increase stopped in 2022, revealing research saturation in the field. Value in Health (166 publications, 13.79% of total documents) had the most publications, while New England Journal of Medicine (2,890 co-citations) was the most co-cited journal. The United States was the leading contributor in this field with 506 publications and the top two productive institutes globally. The main hot topics included the cost-effectiveness of treatment with PD-1 and/or PD-L1 inhibitors, and the comparison between the cost-effectiveness of PD-/PD-L1 inhibitors and other drugs. There were substantial differences between developed and developing countries in the health economics field of PD-1 and/or PD-L1 inhibitors. The cost-effectiveness analysis of combined treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and other drugs warrants further attention. Findings from this study may provide governments and pharmaceutical companies with a strong reference for future research.

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.

Cost-Utility of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Melanoma in the United States: An Analysis Using Long-Term Overall Survival Data from Checkmate 067

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus other first-line therapies for advanced melanoma in the United States (US) from the third-party payer perspective.

METHODS

This analysis estimated total expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs for first-line treatments of advanced melanoma during a 30-year time horizon using indirect treatment comparisons based on time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and a three-state partitioned survival model. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival reference curves were extrapolated based on 5-year follow-up from the phase III Checkmate 067 trial (NCT01844505). Comparators of NIVO + IPI were NIVO, IPI, pembrolizumab, dabrafenib plus trametinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Drug acquisition costs, treatment administration costs, follow-up time, subsequent therapy data, and adverse event frequencies were obtained from published sources. Utility weights were estimated from Checkmate 067, which compared NIVO + IPI or NIVO monotherapy with IPI monotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced melanoma. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity scenarios for BRAF-mutant subgroups were conducted.

RESULTS

NIVO + IPI was estimated to generate the longest OS and the highest total costs versus all comparators, accruing 6.99 LYs, 5.70 QALYs, and $469,469 over the 30-year time horizon. The incremental cost utility of NIVO + IPI versus comparators ranged from $2130 per QALY (versus ENCO + BINI) to $76,169 per QALY (versus NIVO). In all base-case and most sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratios for NIVO + IPI were below $100,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective treatment versus other therapies in the US, with base-case incremental cost-utility ratios below $100,000 per QALY.

Long-Term Outcomes of Targeted Therapy after First-Line Immunotherapy in BRAF-Mutated Advanced Cutaneous Melanoma Patients-Real-World Evidence

BACKGROUND

Currently, limited data on targeted therapy and immunotherapy sequencing in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma is available. Targeted therapy and immunotherapy are expected to be comparable in terms of overall survival (OS) when used as second-line therapies; therefore, understanding the characteristics of patients who completed sequential treatment is needed.

METHODS

The primary objective of this study was to analyze the efficacy of BRAFi/MEKi activity as second-line therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. We also aimed to describe the clinical characteristics of patients with advanced melanoma who were treated sequentially with immunotherapy and targeted therapy. We enrolled 97 patients treated between 1st December 2015 and 31st December 2020 with first-line immunotherapy with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitors; and for the second-line treatment with at least one cycle of BRAFi/MEKi therapy with follow-up through 31 January 2022.

RESULTS

Median OS since first-line treatment initiation was 19.9 months and 12.8 months since initiation of BRAFi/MEKi treatment. All BRAFi/MRKi combinations were similarly effective. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.5 months since initiation of any BRAFi/MEKi treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

BRAFi/MEKi therapy is effective in the second-line in advanced and metastatic melanoma patients. For the first time, the efficacy of all BRAFi/MEKi combinations as second-line therapy is shown.

Conceptual Framework and Methodological Challenges for Modeling Effectiveness in Oncology Treatment Sequence Models

In this review, we summarize the challenges faced by existing oncology treatment sequence decision models and introduce a general framework to conceptualize such models. In the proposed framework, patients with cancer receive at least two lines of therapy (LOTs) followed by palliative care throughout their lifetime. Patients cycle through progression-free and progressive disease health states in each LOT before death. Under this framework, four broad aspects of modeling effectiveness of treatment sequences need exploration. First, disease progression, treatment discontinuation, and the relationship between the two events should be considered. Second, the effectiveness of each LOT depends on its placement in a treatment sequence as the effectiveness of later LOTs may be influenced by the earlier LOTs. Third, the treatment-free interval (TFI; time between discontinuation of earlier LOT and initiation of later LOT) may impact a therapy's effectiveness. Fourth, in the absence of head-to-head trials directly comparing LOTs, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of outcomes for a specific LOT or even for the entire treatment sequence is important to consider. A search of decision models that estimated effectiveness of at least two lines of oncology therapy was conducted in PubMed (N = 20) and technology appraisals by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (N = 26) to assess four methodological aspects related to the model framework: (1) selection of outcomes for effectiveness in a treatment sequence, (2) approaches to adjust the efficacy of a treatment in consideration of its place in the sequence, (3) approaches to address TFIs between LOTs, and (4) incorporation of ITCs to estimate comparators' effectiveness in the absence of direct head-to-head evidence. Most models defined health states based on disease progression on different LOTs while estimating treatment duration outside of the main model framework (30/46) and used data from multiple data sources in different LOTs to model efficacy of a treatment sequence (41/46). No models adjusted efficacy for the characteristics of patients who switched from an earlier LOT to a later LOT or adjusted for the impact of prior therapies, and just six models considered TFIs. While 11 models applied ITC results to estimate efficacy in comparator treatment sequences, the majority limited the ITC to one LOT in the sequence. Thus, there is substantial room to improve the estimation of effectiveness for treatment sequences using existing data when comparing effectiveness of alternative treatment sequences.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma

IMPORTANCE

In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.

PET/CT scan and biopsy-driven approach for safe anti-PD-1 therapy discontinuation in patients with advanced melanoma

Background

Limited data exist on safe discontinuation of antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy in responding patients with advanced melanoma. The use of 18fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸FDG)-PET/CT scan and tumor biopsy for assessment of active disease may be an effective predictive biomarker to guide such treatment decisions.

Methods

A retrospective study of 122 patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or anti-PD-1/anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 combination therapy at Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center was conducted. Uveal melanoma patients and those receiving concurrent experimental therapy were excluded. Baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, and survival were analyzed. Patients who decided to come off treatment typically after 12 months using CT scan radiographic complete response (CR), ¹⁸FDG-PET/CT scan complete metabolic response (CMR) or tumor biopsy of a non-CR/CMR tumor site negative for active disease (possible pathological CR) were identified and compared with patients who discontinued treatment due to toxicity while their disease was in control. Event-free survival (EFS) was assessed from the last dose of anti-PD-1 therapy to progression requiring subsequent treatment (surgery, radiation, and/or systemic therapy) or referral to hospice/death due to melanoma.

Results

24 (20%) patients discontinued treatment by choice with no active disease and 28 (23%) patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity with disease control after 12-month and 4-month median treatment durations, respectively. Similar baseline characteristics were observed between cohorts except higher prior receipt of ipilimumab (29% vs 7%; p=0.036) and fewer BRAF mutant positive disease (17% vs 41%; p=0.064) in patients off treatment by choice. Three-year EFS rates were 95% and 71%, respectively. No significant associations between EFS and sex, disease stage, lactate dehydrogenase elevation, BRAF status, prior systemic therapy, ECOG performance status, presence of brain metastases, or combination versus monotherapy were observed. Tumor biopsies led to alternative management in 3/10 patients due to active metastatic melanoma or second malignancy.

Conclusions

Anti-PD-1 therapy discontinuation after 12 months when no active disease is observed on CT scan, PET/CT scan or tumor biopsy may have low rates of disease relapse in patients with advanced melanoma. Biopsy of residual disease may frequently lead to a change in management. These findings are undergoing validation in the EA6192 trial.

First-line immunotherapy versus targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma: a real-world analysis

Aim: To compare effectiveness of nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors (BRAFi + MEKi) in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: This study used the Flatiron Health electronic medical record database. Results: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, NIVO + IPI was associated with a 32% reduction in risk of death versus BRAFi + MEKi. At a mean follow-up of 15-16 months, 64% of NIVO + IPI patients and 43% of BRAFi + MEKi patients were alive; subsequent therapy was administered to 33 and 41% of patients, respectively. After first-line NIVO + IPI, 20% of patients died before subsequent therapy, whereas 32% died after first-line BRAFi + MEKi. Conclusion: In this real-world study, patients treated with first-line NIVO + IPI showed significant survival benefit versus those receiving first-line BRAFi + MEKi.

Evolving impact of long-term survival results on metastatic melanoma treatment

Melanoma treatment has been revolutionized over the past decade. Long-term results with immuno-oncology (I-O) agents and targeted therapies are providing evidence of durable survival for a substantial number of patients. These results have prompted consideration of how best to define long-term benefit and cure. Now more than ever, oncologists should be aware of the long-term outcomes demonstrated with these newer agents and their relevance to treatment decision-making. As the first tumor type for which I-O agents were approved, melanoma has served as a model for other diseases. Accordingly, discussions regarding the value and impact of long-term survival data in patients with melanoma may be relevant in the future to other tumor types. Current findings indicate that, depending on the treatment, over 50% of patients with melanoma may gain durable survival benefit. The best survival outcomes are generally observed in patients with favorable prognostic factors, particularly normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase and/or a low volume of disease. Survival curves from melanoma clinical studies show a plateau at 3 to 4 years, suggesting that patients who are alive at the 3-year landmark (especially in cases in which treatment had been stopped) will likely experience prolonged cancer remission. Quality-of-life and mixture-cure modeling data, as well as metrics such as treatment-free survival, are helping to define the value of this long-term survival. In this review, we describe the current treatment landscape for melanoma and discuss the long-term survival data with immunotherapies and targeted therapies, discussing how to best evaluate the value of long-term survival. We propose that some patients might be considered functionally cured if they have responded to treatment and remained treatment-free for at least 2 years without disease progression. Finally, we consider that, while there have been major advances in the treatment of melanoma in the past decade, there remains a need to improve outcomes for the patients with melanoma who do not experience durable survival.

How to Address Uncertainty in Health Economic Discrete-Event Simulation Models: An Illustration for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background. Evaluation of personalized treatment options requires health economic models that include multiple patient characteristics. Patient-level discrete-event simulation (DES) models are deemed appropriate because of their ability to simulate a variety of characteristics and treatment pathways. However, DES models are scarce in the literature, and details about their methods are often missing. Methods. We describe 4 challenges associated with modeling heterogeneity and structural, stochastic, and parameter uncertainty that can be encountered during the development of DES models. We explain why these are important and how to correctly implement them. To illustrate the impact of the modeling choices discussed, we use (results of) a model for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as a case study. Results. The results from the case study showed that, under a correct implementation of the uncertainty in the model, a hypothetical intervention can be deemed as cost-effective. The consequences of incorrect modeling uncertainty included an increase in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranging from 50% to almost a factor of 14, an extended life expectancy of approximately 1.4 years, and an enormously increased uncertainty around the model outcomes. Thus, modeling uncertainty incorrectly can have substantial implications for decision making. Conclusions. This article provides guidance on the implementation of uncertainty in DES models and improves the transparency of reporting uncertainty methods. The COPD case study illustrates the issues described in the article and helps understanding them better. The model R code shows how the uncertainty was implemented. For readers not familiar with R, the model's pseudo-code can be used to understand how the model works. By doing this, we can help other developers, who are likely to face similar challenges to those described here.

Optimal treatment strategy for metastatic melanoma patients harboring BRAF-V600 mutations

BRAF-V600 mutations occur in approximately 50% of patients with metastatic melanoma. Immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are both active as first-line treatments in these patients regardless of their mechanisms of action and toxicities. However, an upfront therapeutic strategy is still controversial. In fact, waiting for results of ongoing clinical trials and for new biomarkers, clinicians should base their decision on the clinical characteristics of the patient and on the biological aspects of the tumor. This review provides an overview on BRAF-V600 mutations in melanoma and will discuss their prognostic and clinical significance. Moreover, it will suggest a therapeutic algorithm that can drive therapeutic choice in a first-line setting for BRAF-V600 mutant melanoma patients.

Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive one of the following regimens: nivolumab (at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks); nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab-matched placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses) plus nivolumab-matched placebo. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, as compared with the ipilimumab group.

RESULTS

At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the median overall survival was more than 60.0 months (median not reached) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 36.9 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.52; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.63). Overall survival at 5 years was 52% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 44% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 26% in the ipilimumab group. No sustained deterioration of health-related quality of life was observed during or after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone. No new late toxic effects were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with advanced melanoma, sustained long-term overall survival at 5 years was observed in a greater percentage of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone than in those who received ipilimumab alone, with no apparent loss of quality of life in the patients who received regimens containing nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Treatment-Free Survival: A Novel Outcome Measure of the Effects of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition-A Pooled Analysis of Patients With Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE

Outcome measures that comprehensively capture attributes of immuno-oncology agents, including prolonged treatment-free time and persistent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), are needed to complement conventional survival end points.

METHODS

We pooled data from the CheckMate 067 and 069 clinical trials of nivolumab and ipilimumab, as monotherapies or in combination, for patients with advanced melanoma. Treatment-free survival (TFS) was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two conventional time-to-event end points, each defined from random assignment: time to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was partitioned as time with and without toxicity by a third end point, time to cessation of both ICI therapy and toxicity. Toxicity included persistent and late-onset grade 3 or higher TRAEs. The area under each Kaplan-Meier curve was estimated by the 36-month restricted mean time.

RESULTS

At 36 months, many of the 1,077 patients who initiated ICI therapy were surviving free of subsequent therapy initiation (47% nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 37% nivolumab, 15% ipilimumab). The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (11.1 months) compared with nivolumab (4.6 months; difference, 6.5 months; 95% CI, 5.0 to 8.0 months) or ipilimumab (8.7 months; difference, 2.4 months; 95% CI, 0.8 to 4.1 months); restricted mean TFS represented 31% (3% with and 28% without toxicity), 13% (1% and 11%), and 24% (less than 1% and 23%) of the 36-month period, respectively, in the three treatment groups. TFS without toxicity was longer for nivolumab plus ipilimumab than nivolumab (difference, 6.0 months) or ipilimumab (difference, 1.7 months).

CONCLUSION

The analysis of TFS between ICI cessation and subsequent therapy initiation revealed longer TFS without toxicity for patients with advanced melanoma who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nivolumab or ipilimumab. Regardless of treatment, a small proportion of the TFS involved grade 3 or higher TRAEs.

Comparative efficacy of combination immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Aim: Comparison of clinical outcomes of nivolumab + ipilimumab versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors (dabrafenib + trametinib or vemurafenib + cobimetinib) in BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. Methods: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were conducted between nivolumab + ipilimumab (CheckMate 067/069 studies) and BRAF + MEK inhibitors (COMBI-d, COMBI-v and coBRIM studies). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and objective response rates were assessed. Results: After adjusting, nivolumab + ipilimumab showed improved OS versus dabrafenib + trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46–0.89) or vemurafenib + cobimetinib (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.36–0.89); OS outcomes were similar at 1 year, with benefits emerging after 12 months; progression-free survival and objective response rates were similar. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 54.1% with nivolumab + ipilimumab, 31.6% with dabrafenib + trametinib and 59.5% with vemurafenib + cobimetinib. Conclusion: Nivolumab + ipilimumab had significantly improved clinical outcomes versus BRAF + MEK inhibitors, with benefits increasing after longer follow-up. Ongoing randomized trials directly comparing these treatments are necessary to prospectively validate these findings.