@article{WilliamsMachannKuehleretal.2011,
  author    = {Williams, Tatjana and Machann, Wolfram and K{\"u}hler, Leif and Hamm, Henning and M{\"u}ller-H{\"o}cker, Josef and Zimmer, Michael and Ertl, Georg and Ritter, Oliver and Beer, Meinrad and Sch{\"o}nberger, Jost},
  title     = {Novel desmoplakin mutation: juvenile biventricular cardiomyopathy with left ventricular non-compaction and acantholytic palmoplantar keratoderma},
  series = {Clinical Research in Cardiology},
  volume    = {100},
  journal   = {Clinical Research in Cardiology},
  number    = {12},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00392-011-0345-9},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-141198},
  pages     = {1087-1093},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {Two sons of a consanguineous marriage developed biventricular cardiomyopathy. One boy died of severe heart failure at the age of 6 years, the other was transplanted because of severe heart failure at the age of 10 years. In addition, focal palmoplantar keratoderma and woolly hair were apparent in both boys. As similar phenotypes have been described in Naxos disease and Carvajal syndrome, respectively, the genes for plakoglobin (JUP) and desmoplakin (DSP) were screened for mutations using direct genomic sequencing. A novel homozygous 2 bp deletion was identified in an alternatively spliced region of DSP. The deletion 5208_5209delAG led to a frameshift downstream of amino acid 1,736 with a premature truncation of the predominant cardiac isoform DSP-1. This novel homozygous truncating mutation in the isoform-1 specific region of the DSP C-terminus caused Carvajal syndrome comprising severe early-onset heart failure with features of non-compaction cardiomyopathy, woolly hair and an acantholytic form of palmoplantar keratoderma in our patient. Congenital hair abnormality and manifestation of the cutaneous phenotype in toddler age can help to identify children at risk for cardiac death.},
  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{GlutschSchummerKneitzetal.2022,
  author    = {Glutsch, Valerie and Schummer, Patrick and Kneitz, Hermann and Gesierich, Anja and Goebeler, Matthias and Klein, Detlef and Posch, Christian and Gebhardt, Christoffer and Haferkamp, Sebastian and Zimmer, Lisa and Becker, J{\"u}rgen C and Leiter, Ulrike and Weichenthal, Michael and Schadendorf, Dirk and Ugurel, Selma and Schilling, Bastian},
  title     = {Ipilimumab plus nivolumab in avelumab-refractory Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicenter study of the prospective skin cancer registry ADOREG},
  series = {Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer},
  number    = {11},
  issn      = {2051-1426},
  doi       = {10.1136/jitc-2022-005930},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-304613},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare, highly aggressive skin cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation. Immune checkpoint inhibition has significantly improved treatment outcomes in metastatic disease with response rates to programmed cell death protein 1/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibition of up to 62\%. However, primary and secondary resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition remains a so far unsolved clinical challenge since effective and safe treatment options for these patients are lacking.Fourteen patients with advanced (non-resectable stage III or stage IV, Union international contre le cancer 2017) Merkel cell carcinoma with primary resistance to the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab receiving subsequent therapy (second or later line) with ipilimumab plus nivolumab (IPI/NIVO) were identified in the prospective multicenter skin cancer registry ADOREG. Five of these 14 patients were reported previously and were included in this analysis with additional follow-up. Overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events were analyzed.All 14 patients received avelumab as first-line treatment. Thereof, 12 patients had shown primary resistance with progressive disease in the first tumor assessment, while two patients had initially experienced a short-lived stabilization (stable disease). Six patients had at least one systemic treatment in between avelumab and IPI/NIVO. In total, 7 patients responded to IPI/NIVO (overall response rate 50\%), and response was ongoing in 4 responders at last follow-up. After a median follow-up of 18.85 months, median PFS was 5.07 months (95\% CI 2.43—not available (NA)), and median OS was not reached. PFS rates at 12 months and 24 months were 42.9\% and 26.8 \%, respectively. The OS rate at 36 months was 64.3\%. Only 3 (21\%) patients did not receive all 4 cycles of IPI/NIVO due to immune-related adverse events.In this multicenter evaluation, we observed high response rates, a durable benefit and promising OS rates after treatment with later-line combined IPI/NIVO. In conclusion, our patient cohort supports our prior findings with an encouraging activity of second-line or later-line IPI/NIVO in patients with anti-PD-L1-refractory Merkel cell carcinoma.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HechtMeierZimmeretal.2018,
  author    = {Hecht, Markus and Meier, Friedegund and Zimmer, Lisa and Polat, B{\"u}lent and Loquai, Carmen and Weishaupt, Carsten and Forschner, Andrea and Gutzmer, Ralf and Utikal, Jochen S. and Goldinger, Simone M. and Geier, Michael and Hassel, Jessica C. and Balermpas, Panagiotis and Kiecker, Felix and Rauschenberg, Ricarda and Dietrich, Ursula and Clemens, Patrick and Berking, Carola and Grabenbauer, Gerhard and Schadendorf, Dirk and Grabbe, Stephan and Schuler, Gerold and Fietkau, Rainer and Distel, Luitpold V. and Heinzerling, Lucie},
  title     = {Clinical outcome of concomitant vs interrupted BRAF inhibitor therapy during radiotherapy in melanoma patients},
  series = {British Journal of Cancer},
  volume    = {118},
  journal   = {British Journal of Cancer},
  doi       = {10.1038/bjc.2017.489},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-227970},
  pages     = {785-792},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Background: Concomitant radiation with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) therapy may increase radiation-induced side effects but also potentially improve tumour control in melanoma patients. Methods: A total of 155 patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma from 17 European skin cancer centres were retrospectively analysed. Out of these, 87 patients received concomitant radiotherapy and BRAFi (59 vemurafenib, 28 dabrafenib), while in 68 patients BRAFi therapy was interrupted during radiation (51 vemurafenib, 17 dabrafenib). Overall survival was calculated from the first radiation (OSRT) and from start of BRAFi therapy (OSBRAFi). Results: The median duration of BRAFi treatment interruption prior to radiotherapy was 4 days and lasted for 17 days. Median OSRT and OSBRAFi in the entire cohort were 9.8 and 12.6 months in the interrupted group and 7.3 and 11.5 months in the concomitant group (P=0.075/P=0.217), respectively. Interrupted vemurafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 10.1 and 13.1 months, respectively, was superior to concomitant vemurafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 6.6 and 10.9 months (P=0.004/P=0.067). Interrupted dabrafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 7.7 and 9.8 months, respectively, did not differ from concomitant dabrafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 9.9 and 11.6 months (P=0.132/P=0.404). Median local control of the irradiated area did not differ in the interrupted and concomitant BRAFi treatment groups (P=0.619). Skin toxicity of grade ≥2 (CTCAE) was significantly increased in patients with concomitant vemurafenib compared to the group with treatment interruption (P=0.002). Conclusions: Interruption of vemurafenib treatment during radiation was associated with better survival and less toxicity compared to concomitant treatment. Due to lower number of patients, the relevance of treatment interruption in dabrafenib treated patients should be further investigated. The results of this analysis indicate that treatment with the BRAFi vemurafenib should be interrupted during radiotherapy. Prospective studies are desperately needed.},
  language  = {en}
}