TY - JOUR A1 - Koch, Elias A. T. A1 - Petzold, Anne A1 - Wessely, Anja A1 - Dippel, Edgar A1 - Gesierich, Anja A1 - Gutzmer, Ralf A1 - Hassel, Jessica C. A1 - Haferkamp, Sebastian A1 - Hohberger, Bettina A1 - Kähler, Katharina C. A1 - Knorr, Harald A1 - Kreuzberg, Nicole A1 - Leiter, Ulrike A1 - Loquai, Carmen A1 - Meier, Friedegund A1 - Meissner, Markus A1 - Mohr, Peter A1 - Pföhler, Claudia A1 - Rahimi, Farnaz A1 - Schadendorf, Dirk A1 - Schell, Beatrice A1 - Schlaak, Max A1 - Terheyden, Patrick A1 - Thoms, Kai-Martin A1 - Schuler-Thurner, Beatrice A1 - Ugurel, Selma A1 - Ulrich, Jens A1 - Utikal, Jochen A1 - Weichenthal, Michael A1 - Ziller, Fabian A1 - Berking, Carola A1 - Heppt, Markus T1 - Immune checkpoint blockade for metastatic uveal melanoma: patterns of response and survival according to the presence of hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis JF - Cancers N2 - 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. KW - uveal melanoma KW - immune checkpoint blockade KW - PD-1 KW - CTLA-4 KW - liver metastasis KW - treatment resistance Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-242603 SN - 2072-6694 VL - 13 IS - 13 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Koch, Elias A. T. A1 - Petzold, Anne A1 - Wessely, Anja A1 - Dippel, Edgar A1 - Gesierich, Anja A1 - Gutzmer, Ralf A1 - Hassel, Jessica C. A1 - Haferkamp, Sebastian A1 - Kähler, Katharina C. A1 - Knorr, Harald A1 - Kreuzberg, Nicole A1 - Leiter, Ulrike A1 - Loquai, Carmen A1 - Meier, Friedegund A1 - Meissner, Markus A1 - Mohr, Peter A1 - Pföhler, Claudia A1 - Rahimi, Farnaz A1 - Schadendorf, Dirk A1 - Schell, Beatrice A1 - Schlaak, Max A1 - Terheyden, Patrick A1 - Thoms, Kai-Martin A1 - Schuler-Thurner, Beatrice A1 - Ugurel, Selma A1 - Ulrich, Jens A1 - Utikal, Jochen A1 - Weichenthal, Michael A1 - Ziller, Fabian A1 - Berking, Carola A1 - Heppt, Markus V. T1 - Immune checkpoint blockade for metastatic uveal melanoma: re-induction following resistance or toxicity JF - Cancers N2 - 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. KW - uveal melanoma KW - immune checkpoint blockade KW - PD-1 KW - CTLA-4 KW - re-induction KW - treatment resistance KW - toxicity Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-254814 SN - 2072-6694 VL - 14 IS - 3 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Lodde, Georg A1 - Forschner, Andrea A1 - Hassel, Jessica A1 - Wulfken, Lena M. A1 - Meier, Friedegund A1 - Mohr, Peter A1 - Kähler, Katharina A1 - Schilling, Bastian A1 - Loquai, Carmen A1 - Berking, Carola A1 - Hüning, Svea A1 - Schatton, Kerstin A1 - Gebhardt, Christoffer A1 - Eckardt, Julia A1 - Gutzmer, Ralf A1 - Reinhardt, Lydia A1 - Glutsch, Valerie A1 - Nikfarjam, Ulrike A1 - Erdmann, Michael A1 - Stang, Andreas A1 - Kowall, Bernd A1 - Roesch, Alexander A1 - Ugurel, Selma A1 - Zimmer, Lisa A1 - Schadendorf, Dirk A1 - Livingstone, Elisabeth T1 - Factors influencing the adjuvant therapy decision: results of a real-world multicenter data analysis of 904 melanoma patients JF - Cancers N2 - 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. KW - melanoma KW - adjuvant treatment KW - checkpoint blocker KW - targeted therapy KW - BRAF KW - PD-1 Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-239583 SN - 2072-6694 VL - 13 IS - 10 ER - TY - THES A1 - Kreft, Sophia T1 - Wirksamkeit von PD-1 basierten Immuntherapien nach radiologischem Progress unter zielgerichteter Therapie im Melanom T1 - Efficacy of PD-1 based immunotherapies after radiologic progression on targeted therapy in melanoma N2 - Im metastasierten Melanom sind bei Vorhandensein einer BRAF V600 Mutation zielgerichtete Therapien mit BRAF+MEK-Inhibitoren sowie Immuntherapien (ICB), die Immuncheckpoints wie PD-1 blockieren, zugelassen. Aktuell gibt es keine evidenzbasierte Empfehlung welche Therapie in der Erstlinie im BRAF V600 mutierten Melanom eingesetzt werden sollte. Bis jetzt wurde der Stellenwert PD-1 basierter Immuncheckpoint Blockade in der Zweitlinie nach Progress unter BRAF+MEK-Inhibition nicht beschrieben. Es ist auch unklar, ob die Kombinations-ICB (PD-1 plus CTLA-4 Blockade) mit einer Verbesserung des Ansprechens und Überlebens gegenüber einer PD-1 Monotherapie assoziiert ist, wie für das therapie-naive Melanom beschrieben. Wir haben eine retrospektive, multizentrische Studie durchgeführt um die Wirksamkeit von PD-1 basierten Immuntherapien nach Progress unter zielgerichteter Therapie zu explorieren. In unserer Untersuchung zeigten PD-1 Monotherapie und die kombinierte PD-1 plus CTLA-4 Blockade eine ähnliche Wirksamkeit in Patienten mit BRAFi+MEKi-Resistenz. Die Kombinationstherapie war dagegen mit einem deutlich höheren Risiko für schwerwiegende immunvermittelte Nebenwirkungen im Vergleich zu PD-1 Monotherapie assoziiert. Unsere Daten indizieren, dass eine PD-1 Blockade einer Kombinations-ICB in der Zweitlinie nach Progress unter zielgerichteter Therapie im fortgeschrittenen BRAF V600 mutierten Melanom vorzuziehen ist. N2 - Targeted therapies employing dual inhibition of the MAPK pathway (BRAFi+MEKi) as well as immunotherapies blocking immune checkpoints (ICB) such as PD-1 are approved for metastatic BRAF V600 mutant melanoma. There is no evidence-based recommendation which therapy should be used first-line. The efficacy of second-line PD-1 blocking agents after failure of dual MAPKi has not been characterized. It is not clear whether a combinational ICB (PD-1 plus CTLA-4 blockade) is associated with an improvement in responses and survival compared to single agent PD-1 inhibition, as reported for treatment-naive melanoma. To this end, we conducted a retrospective, multicenter study to explore the outcome of melanoma patients receiving second-line PD-1 based ICB regimes after progression on targeted therapy. In our study PD-1 monotherapy and combined PD-1 plus CTLA-4 blockade showed similar activity in melanoma patients resistant to BRAF plus MEK inhibition. However, combined PD-1 plus CTLA-4 blockade was associated with a higher rate of treatment-related adverse events than monotherapy. Our data indicate that PD-1 monotherapy might be preferred over combined ICB as second-line treatment after progression on targeted therapy in metastatic BRAF V600 mutant melanoma with poor prognosis. KW - Melanom KW - Immuntherapie KW - Zielgerichtete Therapie KW - PD-1 KW - MAPK KW - Zweitlinientherapie KW - second-line treatment Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-218827 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Glutsch, Valerie A1 - Grän, Franziska A1 - Weber, Judith A1 - Gesierich, Anja A1 - Goebeler, Matthias A1 - Schilling, Bastian T1 - Response to combined ipilimumab and nivolumab after development of a nephrotic syndrome related to PD-1 monotherapy JF - Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer N2 - Background High response rates of metastatic melanoma have been reported upon immune checkpoint inhibition by PD-1 blockade alone or in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors. However, the majority of patients with a primary resistance to anti-PD-1 monotherapy is also refractory to a subsequent combined checkpoint inhibition. In BRAF wildtype patients with a primary resistance to PD-1 inhibitors, therapeutic options are therefore limited and immune-related adverse events (irAE) have to be taken into consideration when discussing a subsequent immunotherapy. Case presentation We report the case of a 68-year-old male patient with metastatic melanoma who experienced an acute renal failure with nephrotic syndrome due to a minimal change disease developing after a single dose of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab. A kidney biopsy revealed a podocytopathy without signs of interstitial nephritis. Renal function recovered to almost normal creatinine and total urine protein levels upon treatment with oral steroids and diuretics. Unfortunately, a disease progression (PD, RECIST 1.1) was observed in a CT scan after resolution of the irAE. In a grand round, re-exposure to a PD-1-containing regime was recommended. Consensually, a combined immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab was initiated. Nephrotoxicity was tolerable during combined immunotherapy and a CT scan of chest and abdomen showed a deep partial remission (RECIST 1.1) after three doses of ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) and nivolumab (1 mg/kg). Conclusion This case illustrates that a fulminant response to combined checkpoint inhibition is possible after progression after anti-PD-1 monotherapy and a severe irAE. KW - PD-1 KW - Immune-related adverse event KW - Minimal change disease KW - Ipilimumab KW - Nivolumab Y1 - 2019 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-201214 VL - 7 ER -