Toxicity, response, and survival in older adults with metastatic melanoma treated with checkpoint inhibitors.

Authors

null

Nienke A De Glas

Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands

Nienke A De Glas , Esther Bastiaannet , Frederiek van den Bos , Simon Mooijaart , Astrid Aplonia Maria Van Der Veldt , Karijn Suijkerbuijk , Maureen J.B. Aarts , Franchette van den Berkmortel , Christian U. Blank , Marye Boers-Sonderen , Alfonsus Johannes Maria van den Eertwegh , Jan Willem de Groot , Geke Hospers , John B. A. G. Haanen , Djura Piersma , Rozemarijn Van Rijn , A. J. Ten Tije , Michel W.J.M. Wouters , Johanna Elisabeth A. Portielje , Ellen Kapiteijn

Organizations

Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands, Departments of Medical Oncology and Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands, UMCU, Utrecht, Netherlands, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands, Zuyderland Hospital, Heerlen, Netherlands, Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Oncological Center Isala, Zwolle, Netherlands, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Oncology, Groningen, Netherlands, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands, MST, Enschede, Netherlands, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, Netherlands, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden, Netherlands, Haga Hospitals, Den Haag, Netherlands, Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden, Netherlands

Research Funding

Other Foundation
Dutch Research Council (NWO)

Background: Checkpoint inhibitors have strongly improved survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. Trials suggest no differences in outcomes between older and younger patients, but only relatively young patients with a good performance status were included in these trials. The aim of this study was to describe treatment patterns and outcomes of older adults with metastatic melanoma, and to identify predictors of outcome. Methods: We included all patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic melanoma between 2013 and 2020 from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment registry (DMTR), in which detailed information on patients, treatments and outcomes is available. We assessed predictors of grade ≥3 toxicity and 6-months response using logistic regression models, and melanoma-specific and overall survival using Cox regression models. Additionally, we described reasons for hospital admissions and treatment discontinuation. Results: A total of 2216 patients were included. Grade ≥3 toxicity did not increase with age, comorbidity or WHO performance status, in patients treated with monotherapy (anti-PD1 or ipilimumab) or combination treatment. However, patients aged ≥75 were admitted more frequently and discontinued treatment due to toxicity more often. Six months-response rates were similar to previous randomized trials (40.3% and 43.6% in patients aged 65-75 and ≥75 respectively for anti-PD1 treatment) and were not affected by age or comorbidity. Melanoma-specific survival was not affected by age or comorbidity, but age, comorbidity and WHO performance status were associated with overall survival in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: Toxicity, response and melanoma-specific survival were not associated with age or comorbidity status. Treatment with immunotherapy should therefore not be omitted solely based on age or comorbidity. However, the impact of grade I-II toxicity in older patients deserves further study as older patients discontinue treatment more frequently and receive less treatment cycles.


anti-PD(L)1
Ipilimumab

Ipilimumab + nivolumab
p-value
% of treated patients with toxicity
OR
95% C.I.
p-value
% of treated patients with toxicity
OR
95% C.I.
p-value
% of treated patients with toxicity
OR
95% C.I.
Age












65-74

75+
13.9

16.6
Ref

1.23


(0.86-1.77)
0.255
31.9

31.0
Ref

0.96


(0.60-1.52)
0.859
41.0

47.4
Ref

1.02


(0.96-1.09)
0.543
Number of comorbidities












0

1-2

3 or more

Unknown
12.1

15.3

16.0

15.8
Ref

1.32

1.39

1.37


(0.71-2.45)

(0.75-2.60)

(0.35-5.29)
0.781






28.6

32.7

32.8

0.0
Ref

1.22

1.22

.


(0.67-2.20)

(0.65-2.28)


0.922






43.9

46.7

34.4

55.
Ref

1.12

0.67

1.60


(0.53-2.35)

(0.30-1.51)

(0.37-6.83)
0.410
WHO classification












0

1

2

3 or 4

Unknown
15.2

15.1

22.4

0.0

11.8
Ref

0.99

1.61

.

0.75


(0.66-1.48)

(0.89-2.93)

(0.34-1.63)
0.480








34.3

25.9

50.0

0.0

27.8
Ref

0.67

1.91

.

0.74


(0.40-1.12)

(0.65-5.68)

(0.34-1.61)
0.321








47.8

40.5

45.0

.

28.6
Ref

0.75

0.89

.

0.44


(0.40-1.40)

(0.34-2.37)

(0.13-1.50)
0.704

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2021 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Melanoma/Skin Cancers

Track

Melanoma/Skin Cancers

Sub Track

Advanced/Metastatic Disease

Citation

J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 15; abstr 9544)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.9544

Abstract #

9544

Poster Bd #

Online Only

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Harsh V Parmar

First Author: Shivanshan Pathmanathan