@article{ElHelouBiegnerBodeetal.2019,
  author    = {El-Helou, Sabine M. and Biegner, Anika-Kerstin and Bode, Sebastian and Ehl, Stephan R. and Heeg, Maximilian and Maccari, Maria E. and Ritterbusch, Henrike and Speckmann, Carsten and Rusch, Stephan and Scheible, Raphael and Warnatz, Klaus and Atschekzei, Faranaz and Beider, Renata and Ernst, Diana and Gerschmann, Stev and Jablonka, Alexandra and Mielke, Gudrun and Schmidt, Reinhold E. and Sch{\"u}rmann, Gesine and Sogkas, Georgios and Baumann, Ulrich H. and Klemann, Christian and Viemann, Dorothee and Bernuth, Horst von and Kr{\"u}ger, Renate and Hanitsch, Leif G. and Scheibenbogen, Carmen M. and Wittke, Kirsten and Albert, Michael H. and Eichinger, Anna and Hauck, Fabian and Klein, Christoph and Rack-Hoch, Anita and Sollinger, Franz M. and Avila, Anne and Borte, Michael and Borte, Stephan and Fasshauer, Maria and Hauenherm, Anja and Kellner, Nils and M{\"u}ller, Anna H. and {\"U}lzen, Anett and Bader, Peter and Bakhtiar, Shahrzad and Lee, Jae-Yun and Heß, Ursula and Schubert, Ralf and W{\"o}lke, Sandra and Zielen, Stefan and Ghosh, Sujal and Laws, Hans-Juergen and Neubert, Jennifer and Oommen, Prasad T. and H{\"o}nig, Manfred and Schulz, Ansgar and Steinmann, Sandra and Klaus, Schwarz and D{\"u}ckers, Gregor and Lamers, Beate and Langemeyer, Vanessa and Niehues, Tim and Shai, Sonu and Graf, Dagmar and M{\"u}glich, Carmen and Schmalzing, Marc T. and Schwaneck, Eva C. and Tony, Hans-Peter and Dirks, Johannes and Haase, Gabriele and Liese, Johannes G. and Morbach, Henner and Foell, Dirk and Hellige, Antje and Wittkowski, Helmut and Masjosthusmann, Katja and Mohr, Michael and Geberzahn, Linda and Hedrich, Christian M. and M{\"u}ller, Christiane and R{\"o}sen-Wolff, Angela and Roesler, Joachim and Zimmermann, Antje and Behrends, Uta and Rieber, Nikolaus and Schauer, Uwe and Handgretinger, Rupert and Holzer, Ursula and Henes, J{\"o}rg and Kanz, Lothar and Boesecke, Christoph and Rockstroh, J{\"u}rgen K. and Schwarze-Zander, Carolynne and Wasmuth, Jan-Christian and Dilloo, Dagmar and H{\"u}lsmann, Brigitte and Sch{\"o}nberger, Stefan and Schreiber, Stefan and Zeuner, Rainald and Ankermann, Tobias and Bismarck, Philipp von and Huppertz, Hans-Iko and Kaiser-Labusch, Petra and Greil, Johann and Jakoby, Donate and Kulozik, Andreas E. and Metzler, Markus and Naumann-Bartsch, Nora and Sobik, Bettina and Graf, Norbert and Heine, Sabine and Kobbe, Robin and Lehmberg, Kai and M{\"u}ller, Ingo and Herrmann, Friedrich and Horneff, Gerd and Klein, Ariane and Peitz, Joachim and Schmidt, Nadine and Bielack, Stefan and Groß-Wieltsch, Ute and Classen, Carl F. and Klasen, Jessica and Deutz, Peter and Kamitz, Dirk and Lassy, Lisa and Tenbrock, Klaus and Wagner, Norbert and Bernbeck, Benedikt and Brummel, Bastian and Lara-Villacanas, Eusebia and M{\"u}nstermann, Esther and Schneider, Dominik T. and Tietsch, Nadine and Westkemper, Marco and Weiß, Michael and Kramm, Christof and K{\"u}hnle, Ingrid and Kullmann, Silke and Girschick, Hermann and Specker, Christof and Vinnemeier-Laubenthal, Elisabeth and Haenicke, Henriette and Schulz, Claudia and Schweigerer, Lothar and M{\"u}ller, Thomas G. and Stiefel, Martina and Belohradsky, Bernd H. and Soetedjo, Veronika and Kindle, Gerhard and Grimbacher, Bodo},
  title     = {The German national registry of primary immunodeficiencies (2012-2017)},
  series = {Frontiers in Immunology},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Immunology},
  doi       = {10.3389/fimmu.2019.01272},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-226629},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Introduction: The German PID-NET registry was founded in 2009, serving as the first national registry of patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PID) in Germany. It is part of the European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) registry. The primary purpose of the registry is to gather data on the epidemiology, diagnostic delay, diagnosis, and treatment of PIDs. Methods: Clinical and laboratory data was collected from 2,453 patients from 36 German PID centres in an online registry. Data was analysed with the software Stata® and Excel. Results: The minimum prevalence of PID in Germany is 2.72 per 100,000 inhabitants. Among patients aged 1-25, there was a clear predominance of males. The median age of living patients ranged between 7 and 40 years, depending on the respective PID. Predominantly antibody disorders were the most prevalent group with 57\% of all 2,453 PID patients (including 728 CVID patients). A gene defect was identified in 36\% of patients. Familial cases were observed in 21\% of patients. The age of onset for presenting symptoms ranged from birth to late adulthood (range 0-88 years). Presenting symptoms comprised infections (74\%) and immune dysregulation (22\%). Ninety-three patients were diagnosed without prior clinical symptoms. Regarding the general and clinical diagnostic delay, no PID had undergone a slight decrease within the last decade. However, both, SCID and hyper IgE-syndrome showed a substantial improvement in shortening the time between onset of symptoms and genetic diagnosis. Regarding treatment, 49\% of all patients received immunoglobulin G (IgG) substitution (70\%-subcutaneous; 29\%-intravenous; 1\%-unknown). Three-hundred patients underwent at least one hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Five patients had gene therapy. Conclusion: The German PID-NET registry is a precious tool for physicians, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, politicians, and ultimately the patients, for whom the outcomes will eventually lead to a more timely diagnosis and better treatment.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KochPetzoldWesselyetal.2021,
  author    = {Koch, Elias A. T. and Petzold, Anne and Wessely, Anja and Dippel, Edgar and Gesierich, Anja and Gutzmer, Ralf and Hassel, Jessica C. and Haferkamp, Sebastian and Hohberger, Bettina and K{\"a}hler, Katharina C. and Knorr, Harald and Kreuzberg, Nicole and Leiter, Ulrike and Loquai, Carmen and Meier, Friedegund and Meissner, Markus and Mohr, Peter and Pf{\"o}hler, Claudia and Rahimi, Farnaz and Schadendorf, Dirk and Schell, Beatrice and Schlaak, Max and Terheyden, Patrick and Thoms, Kai-Martin and Schuler-Thurner, Beatrice and Ugurel, Selma and Ulrich, Jens and Utikal, Jochen and Weichenthal, Michael and Ziller, Fabian and Berking, Carola and Heppt, Markus},
  title     = {Immune checkpoint blockade for metastatic uveal melanoma: patterns of response and survival according to the presence of hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis},
  series = {Cancers},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Cancers},
  number    = {13},
  issn      = {2072-6694},
  doi       = {10.3390/cancers13133359},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-242603},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Since there is no standardized and effective treatment for advanced uveal melanoma (UM), the prognosis is dismal once metastases develop. Due to the availability of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in the real-world setting, the prognosis of metastatic UM has improved. However, it is unclear how the presence of hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis impacts the response and survival after ICB. Methods: A total of 178 patients with metastatic UM treated with ICB were included in this analysis. Patients were recruited from German skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg). To investigate the impact of hepatic metastasis, two cohorts were compared: patients with liver metastasis only (cohort A, n = 55) versus those with both liver and extra-hepatic metastasis (cohort B, n = 123). Data were analyzed in both cohorts for response to treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The survival and progression probabilities were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank tests, χ\(^2\) tests, and t-tests were performed to detect significant differences between both cohorts. Results: The median OS of the overall population was 16 months (95\% CI 13.4-23.7) and the median PFS, 2.8 months (95\% CI 2.5-3.0). The median OS was longer in cohort B than in cohort A (18.2 vs. 6.1 months; p = 0.071). The best objective response rate to dual ICB was 13.8\% and to anti-PD-1 monotherapy 8.9\% in the entire population. Patients with liver metastases only had a lower response to dual ICB, yet without significance (cohort A 8.7\% vs. cohort B 16.7\%; p = 0.45). Adverse events (AE) occurred in 41.6\%. Severe AE were observed in 26.3\% and evenly distributed between both cohorts. Conclusion: The survival of this large cohort of patients with advanced UM was more favorable than reported in previous benchmark studies. Patients with both hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis showed more favorable survival and higher response to dual ICB than those with hepatic metastasis only.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LoddeForschnerHasseletal.2021,
  author    = {Lodde, Georg and Forschner, Andrea and Hassel, Jessica and Wulfken, Lena M. and Meier, Friedegund and Mohr, Peter and K{\"a}hler, Katharina and Schilling, Bastian and Loquai, Carmen and Berking, Carola and H{\"u}ning, Svea and Schatton, Kerstin and Gebhardt, Christoffer and Eckardt, Julia and Gutzmer, Ralf and Reinhardt, Lydia and Glutsch, Valerie and Nikfarjam, Ulrike and Erdmann, Michael and Stang, Andreas and Kowall, Bernd and Roesch, Alexander and Ugurel, Selma and Zimmer, Lisa and Schadendorf, Dirk and Livingstone, Elisabeth},
  title     = {Factors influencing the adjuvant therapy decision: results of a real-world multicenter data analysis of 904 melanoma patients},
  series = {Cancers},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Cancers},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {2072-6694},
  doi       = {10.3390/cancers13102319},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-239583},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Adjuvant treatment of melanoma patients with immune-checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and targeted therapy (TT) significantly improved recurrence-free survival. This study investigates the real-world situation of 904 patients from 13 German skin cancer centers with an indication for adjuvant treatment since the approval of adjuvant ICI and TT. From adjusted log-binomial regression models, we estimated relative risks for associations between various influence factors and treatment decisions (adjuvant therapy yes/no, TT vs. ICI in BRAF mutant patients). Of these patients, 76.9\% (95\% CI 74-80) opted for a systemic adjuvant treatment. The probability of starting an adjuvant treatment was 26\% lower in patients >65 years (RR 0.74, 95\% CI 68-80). The most common reasons against adjuvant treatment given by patients were age (29.4\%, 95\% CI 24-38), and fear of adverse events (21.1\%, 95\% CI 16-28) and impaired quality of life (11.9\%, 95\% CI 7-16). Of all BRAF-mutated patients who opted for adjuvant treatment, 52.9\% (95\% CI 47-59) decided for ICI. Treatment decision for TT or ICI was barely associated with age, gender and tumor stage, but with comorbidities and affiliated center. Shortly after their approval, adjuvant treatments have been well accepted by physicians and patients. Age plays a decisive role in the decision for adjuvant treatment, while pre-existing autoimmune disease and regional differences influence the choice between TT or ICI.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KleistMohrGaikwadetal.2016,
  author    = {Kleist, Christian and Mohr, Elisabeth and Gaikwad, Sadanand and Dittmar, Laura and Kuerten, Stefanie and Platten, Michael and Mier, Walter and Schmitt, Michael and Opelz, Gerhard and Terness, Peter},
  title     = {Autoantigen-specific immunosuppression with tolerogenic peripheral blood cells prevents relapses in a mouse model of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis},
  series = {Journal of Translational Medicine},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Journal of Translational Medicine},
  number    = {99},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12967-016-0860-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-165787},
  pages     = {1-14},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background: Dendritic cells (DCs) rendered suppressive by treatment with mitomycin C and loaded with the autoantigen myelin basic protein demonstrated earlier their ability to prevent experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), the animal model for multiple sclerosis (MS). This provides an approach for prophylactic vaccination against autoimmune diseases. For clinical application such DCs are difficult to generate and autoantigens hold the risk of exacerbating the disease. Methods: We replaced DCs by peripheral mononuclear cells and myelin autoantigens by glatiramer acetate (Copaxone ®), a drug approved for the treatment of MS. Spleen cells were loaded with Copaxone®, incubated with mitomycin C (MICCop) and injected into mice after the first bout of relapsing-remitting EAE. Immunosuppression mediated by MICCop was investigated in vivo by daily assessment of clinical signs of paralysis and in in vitro restimulation assays of peripheral immune cells. Cytokine profiling was performed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Migration of MICCop cells after injection was examined by biodistribution analysis of 111Indium-labelled MICCop. The number and inhibitory activity of CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ regulatory T cells were analysed by histology, flow cytometry and in vitro mixed lymphocyte cultures. In order to assess the specificity of MICCop-induced suppression, treated EAE mice were challenged with the control protein ovalbumin. Humoral and cellular immune responses were then determined by ELISA and in vitro antigen restimulation assay. Results: MICCop cells were able to inhibit the harmful autoreactive T-cell response and prevented mice from further relapses without affecting general immune responses. Administered MICCop migrated to various organs leading to an increased infiltration of the spleen and the central nervous system with CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ cells displaying a suppressive cytokine profile and inhibiting T-cell responses. Conclusion: We describe a clinically applicable cell therapeutic approach for controlling relapses in autoimmune encephalomyelitis by specifically silencing the deleterious autoimmune response.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KochPetzoldWesselyetal.2022,
  author    = {Koch, Elias A. T. and Petzold, Anne and Wessely, Anja and Dippel, Edgar and Gesierich, Anja and Gutzmer, Ralf and Hassel, Jessica C. and Haferkamp, Sebastian and K{\"a}hler, Katharina C. and Knorr, Harald and Kreuzberg, Nicole and Leiter, Ulrike and Loquai, Carmen and Meier, Friedegund and Meissner, Markus and Mohr, Peter and Pf{\"o}hler, Claudia and Rahimi, Farnaz and Schadendorf, Dirk and Schell, Beatrice and Schlaak, Max and Terheyden, Patrick and Thoms, Kai-Martin and Schuler-Thurner, Beatrice and Ugurel, Selma and Ulrich, Jens and Utikal, Jochen and Weichenthal, Michael and Ziller, Fabian and Berking, Carola and Heppt, Markus V.},
  title     = {Immune checkpoint blockade for metastatic uveal melanoma: re-induction following resistance or toxicity},
  series = {Cancers},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Cancers},
  number    = {3},
  issn      = {2072-6694},
  doi       = {10.3390/cancers14030518},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-254814},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Re-induction with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) needs to be considered in many patients with uveal melanoma (UM) due to limited systemic treatment options. Here, we provide hitherto the first analysis of ICB re-induction in UM. A total of 177 patients with metastatic UM treated with ICB were included from German skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg). To investigate the impact of ICB re-induction, two cohorts were compared: patients who received at least one ICB re-induction (cohort A, n = 52) versus those who received only one treatment line of ICB (cohort B, n = 125). In cohort A, a transient benefit of overall survival (OS) was observed at 6 and 12 months after the treatment start of ICB. There was no significant difference in OS between both groups (p = 0.1) with a median OS of 16.2 months (cohort A, 95\% CI: 11.1-23.8) versus 9.4 months (cohort B, 95\% CI: 6.1-14.9). Patients receiving re-induction of ICB (cohort A) had similar response rates compared to those receiving ICB once. Re-induction of ICB may yield a clinical benefit for a small subgroup of patients even after resistance or development of toxicities.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GlutschAmaralGarbeetal.2020,
  author    = {Glutsch, Valerie and Amaral, Teresa and Garbe, Claus and Thoms, Kai-Martin and Mohr, Peter and Hauschild, Axel and Schilling, Bastian},
  title     = {Indirect Comparison of Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibition in Melanoma Patients with Elevated Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase},
  series = {Acta Dermato-Venereologica},
  volume    = {100},
  journal   = {Acta Dermato-Venereologica},
  doi       = {10.2340/00015555-3526},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-230190},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The approval of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has signifi-cantly improved treatment outcomes for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. The 3 first-line targeted therapy trials have provided similar results, and thus the identification of predictive biomarkers may generate a more precise basis for clinical deci-sion-making. Elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) has already been determined as a strong prog-nostic factor. Therefore, this indirect analysis compa-red subgroups with elevated baseline LDH across the pivotal targeted therapy trials co-BRIM, COMBI-v and COLUMBUS part 1. The Bucher method was used to compare progression-free survival, objective response rate and overall survival indirectly. The results show a non-significant risk reduction for progression in the subgroup with elevated baseline LDH receiving vemu-rafenib plus cobimetinib compared with dabrafenib plus trametinib and encorafenib plus binimetinib. Al-though an indirect comparison, these data might pro-vide some guidance for treatment recommendations in melanoma patients with elevated LDH.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HaistStegeLangetal.2022,
  author    = {Haist, Maximilian and Stege, Henner and Lang, Berenice Mareen and Tsochataridou, Aikaterini and Salzmann, Martin and Mohr, Peter and Schadendorf, Dirk and Ugurel, Selma and Placke, Jan-Malte and Weichenthal, Michael and Gutzmer, Ralf and Leiter, Ulrike and Kaatz, Martin and Haferkamp, Sebastian and Berking, Carola and Heppt, Markus and Tschechne, Barbara and Schummer, Patrick and Gebhardt, Christoffer and Grabbe, Stephan and Loquai, Carmen},
  title     = {Response to first-line treatment with immune-checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter, retrospective analysis from the German ADOReg registry},
  series = {Cancers},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Cancers},
  number    = {22},
  issn      = {2072-6694},
  doi       = {10.3390/cancers14225543},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-297506},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is a common malignancy of the skin and has an overall favorable outcome, except for patients with an advanced stage of the disease. The efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) for advanced cSCC has been demonstrated in recent clinical studies, but data from real-world cohorts and trial-ineligible cSCC patients are limited. We retrospectively investigated patients with advanced cSCC who have been treated with CPI in a first-line setting at eight German skin cancer centers registered within the multicenter registry ADOReg. Clinical outcome parameters including response, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), and toxicity were analyzed and have been stratified by the individual immune status. Among 39 evaluable patients, the tumor response rate (rwTRR) was 48.6\%, the median PFS was 29.0 months, and the median OS was not reached. In addition, 9 patients showed an impaired immune status due to immunosuppressive medication or hematological diseases. Our data demonstrated that CPI also evoked tumor responses among immunocompromised patients (rwTRR: 48.1 vs. 50.0\%), although these responses less often resulted in durable remissions. In line with this, the median PFS (11 vs. 40 months, p = 0.059), TTNT (12 months vs. NR, p = 0.016), and OS (29 months vs. NR, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter for this patient cohort. CPI therapy was well tolerated in both subcohorts with 15\% discontinuing therapy due to toxicity. Our real-world data show that first-line CPI therapy produced strong and durable responses among patients with advanced cSCC. Immunocompromised patients were less likely to achieve long-term benefit from anti-PD1 treatment, despite similar tumor response rates.},
  language  = {en}
}