Real-world comparison of outcomes in the first line treatment of metastatic melanoma according to BRAF mutation status: Nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy vs. nivolumab monotherapy.

Authors

null

Avital Klein-Brill

Anthem Innovation Israel, Tel Aviv, Israel

Avital Klein-Brill , Shlomit Amar-Farkash , Michael Jordan Fisch , Dvir Aran

Organizations

Anthem Innovation Israel, Tel Aviv, Israel, AIM Specialty Health, Chicago, IL, Lorry I. Lokey Interdisciplinary Center for Life Sciences and Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

Research Funding

No funding received

Background: In metastatic melanoma (MM) patients, nivolumab can be used as monotherapy or in combinations with ipilimumab. The combination therapy has been shown in a randomized clinical trial to provide survival benefit in BRAF mutant patients with an increased toxicity. Using real-world data, we evaluated the impact on overall survival and post-treatment hospitalizations of 1L nivo alone vs nivo+ipi. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1L treatment of patients with MM between 1/2016 and 12/2020, utilizing administrative claims data from the Anthem Cancer Care Quality Program. Real-world overall survival (OS) was defined as time from diagnosis to death. A Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for demographic and clinical features. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Our cohort included 708 1L MM patients, of them 466 (66%) treated with nivo+ipi. There was no difference in BRAF status between the treatment groups. Patients treated with nivo+ipi were younger and had more evidence of brain and lung metastasis. Following adjustment, nivo treated had significant longer OS compared to the nivo+ipi treated (aHR: 1.73 (1.25-2.35), p = 8e-4). This difference mostly stems from increased mortality of the combo treated in the first 6 months. At 24-months, 58% of the combination therapy treated patients were alive compared to 74% in the monotherapy group (p = 0.0006). Survival benefit was only observed in BRAF WT patients. In V600E patients no survival difference was observed (aHR: 0.8 (0.4-1.6), p = 0.5). Patients treated with the combination therapy had 5-fold more hospitalizations during the first 90 days after the treatment start (46% vs 10%, p = 3e-22). Conclusions: Our retrospective cohort study demonstrated improved survival for the monotherapy in BRAF WT patients. Combination therapy was associated with significantly more treatment-related hospitalizations and deaths, mainly in the first 6 months. The increased early morbidity of the combo should be considered in treatment decision.

Baseline characteristics of the cohort.




Monotherapy
Combined Therapy
P-Value

N
242
466

Demography
Age, mean (SD)
57.0 (9.9)
54.5 (10.5)
0.003
Gender - F, n (%)
68 (28.1)
144 (30.9)
0.49
SDI, mean (SD)
36.4 (25.7)
41.1 (25.8)
0.021
Clinical Features
PS, n (%)
0
139 (57.4)
243 (52.1)
0.38
1
91 (37.6)
200 (42.9)
2
12 (5.0)
23 (4.9)
Comorbidity score, mean (SD)
0.5 (0.9)
0.6 (0.9)
0.215
Metastasis sites
Brain, n (%)
155 (74.2)
273 (60.0)
0.001
Lung, n (%)
138 (66.0)
256 (56.3)
0.022
LDH level, n (%)
High
6 (20.0)
24 (40.0)
0.057
Normal
21 (70.0)
26 (43.3)
Top
3 (10.0)
10 (16.7)

BRAF status, n (%)
V600E
49 (36.8)
71 (36.0)
0.91
V600K
8 (6.0)
10 (5.1)
WT
76 (57.1)
116 (58.9)

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

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Publication Only

Session Title

Melanoma/Skin Cancers

Track

Melanoma/Skin Cancers

Sub Track

Advanced/Metastatic Disease

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 16; abstr e21519)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.e21519

Abstract #

e21519

Abstract Disclosures