Health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immunotherapies in real-world clinical practice settings.
Immunotherapy
Melanoma
Metastatic
Patient reported outcomes
Quality of life
Journal
Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1573-2649
Titre abrégé: Qual Life Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9210257
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
accepted:
04
05
2020
pubmed:
15
5
2020
medline:
1
12
2020
entrez:
15
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are approved advanced melanoma (AM) immunotherapies. To address limited health-related quality of life (QoL) real-world evidence with immunotherapies in AM, we compared QoL in AM patients receiving either treatment in clinical practice. A prospective US observational study enrolled adult AM patients initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between June 2017 and March 2018. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 global health score (GHS) and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Mean changes were compared using repeated measures mixed-effects models and are presented covariate adjusted. 225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI + NIVO patients were enrolled. From baseline through week 24, PEMBRO was associated with 3.2 mean GHS score increase (95% CI 0.5, 5.9; p = .02), while no change was observed with IPI + NIVO; 0.2 (95% CI - 2.6, 3.0; p = 0.87). Among objective treatment-responders, GHS scores associated with PEMBRO increased 6.0 (95% CI 3.1, 8.8; p < .0001); IPI + NIVO patients increased 3.8 (95% CI 0.8, 6.9; p = .01). In treatment non-responders, IPI + NIVO was associated with GHS/QoL deterioration of - 3.7 (95% CI - 6.8, - 0.6; p = .02), PEMBRO non-responders demonstrated no change; 0.7 (95% CI - 2.3, 3.7; p = 0.6). Between treatments, PEMBRO patients increased 2.6 greater in EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.6, 4.5; p = .01) vs IPI + NIVO at 24 weeks. PEMBRO was associated with better 24-week QoL compared to IPI + NIVO in actual clinical practice settings. Real-world data has known limitations, but with further confirmation these results may have implications for treatment selection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are approved advanced melanoma (AM) immunotherapies. To address limited health-related quality of life (QoL) real-world evidence with immunotherapies in AM, we compared QoL in AM patients receiving either treatment in clinical practice.
METHODS
METHODS
A prospective US observational study enrolled adult AM patients initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between June 2017 and March 2018. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 global health score (GHS) and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Mean changes were compared using repeated measures mixed-effects models and are presented covariate adjusted.
RESULTS
RESULTS
225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI + NIVO patients were enrolled. From baseline through week 24, PEMBRO was associated with 3.2 mean GHS score increase (95% CI 0.5, 5.9; p = .02), while no change was observed with IPI + NIVO; 0.2 (95% CI - 2.6, 3.0; p = 0.87). Among objective treatment-responders, GHS scores associated with PEMBRO increased 6.0 (95% CI 3.1, 8.8; p < .0001); IPI + NIVO patients increased 3.8 (95% CI 0.8, 6.9; p = .01). In treatment non-responders, IPI + NIVO was associated with GHS/QoL deterioration of - 3.7 (95% CI - 6.8, - 0.6; p = .02), PEMBRO non-responders demonstrated no change; 0.7 (95% CI - 2.3, 3.7; p = 0.6). Between treatments, PEMBRO patients increased 2.6 greater in EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.6, 4.5; p = .01) vs IPI + NIVO at 24 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
PEMBRO was associated with better 24-week QoL compared to IPI + NIVO in actual clinical practice settings. Real-world data has known limitations, but with further confirmation these results may have implications for treatment selection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32405921
doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02520-7
pii: 10.1007/s11136-020-02520-7
pmc: PMC7561540
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2651-2660Références
Ann Oncol. 2014 Mar;25(3):700-706
pubmed: 24504441
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(5):479-86
pubmed: 16749193
Lancet. 2017 Oct 21;390(10105):1853-1862
pubmed: 28822576
Support Care Cancer. 2017 Jul;25(7):2155-2167
pubmed: 28247127
Br J Cancer. 2018 Mar 20;118(6):777-784
pubmed: 29438370
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
pubmed: 8433390
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16(13):1389-98
pubmed: 26433819
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012 Jun 13;10:66
pubmed: 22694829
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Sep;82:80-91
pubmed: 28651159
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Nov;86:115-124
pubmed: 28987768
Ann Oncol. 2016 Oct;27(10):1940-6
pubmed: 27405322
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Jul;48(11):1713-21
pubmed: 22418017
Melanoma Res. 2018 Apr;28(2):134-142
pubmed: 29261570
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Oct 11;4:79
pubmed: 17034633
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Dec 21;5:70
pubmed: 18154669
Value Health. 2019 Feb;22(2):203-209
pubmed: 30711065
Eur J Cancer. 2015 May;51(7):833-40
pubmed: 25794603
Ann Oncol. 2009 Aug;20 Suppl 6:vi51-8
pubmed: 19617298
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Dec 1;30(34):4249-55
pubmed: 23071244