Systemic therapy for Asian patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma in a real-world setting: A multi-center retrospective study in Japan (B-CHECK-RWD study).
Asian
BRAF
immune-checkpoint inhibitor
melanoma
targeted therapy
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
revised:
21
07
2023
received:
31
03
2023
accepted:
31
07
2023
medline:
28
9
2023
pubmed:
16
8
2023
entrez:
16
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy is considered a preferred first-line treatment for advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. However, a recent international multi-center study suggested that the efficacy of immunotherapy is poorer in Asian patients in the non-acral cutaneous subtype. We hypothesized that the optimal first-line treatment for Asian patients may be different. We retrospectively collected data of Asian patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (Anti-PD-1), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (PD-1/CTLA-4) between 2016 and 2021 from 28 institutions in Japan. We identified 336 patients treated with BRAF/MEKi (n = 236), Anti-PD-1 (n = 64) and PD-1/CTLA-4 (n = 36). The median follow-up duration was 19.9 months for all patients and 28.6 months for the 184 pa tients who were alive at their last follow-up. For patients treated with BRAF/MEKi, anti-PD-1, PD-1/CTLA-4, the median ages at baseline were 62, 62, and 53 years (p = 0.03); objective response rates were 69%, 27%, and 28% (p < 0.001); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7, 5.4, and 5.8 months (p = 0.003), and median overall survival (OS) was 34.6, 37.0 months, and not reached, respectively (p = 0.535). In multivariable analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS of Anti-PD-1 and PD-1/CTLA-4 compared with BRAF/MEKi were 2.30 (p < 0.001) and 1.38 (p = 0.147), and for OS, HRs were 1.37 (p = 0.111) and 0.56 (p = 0.075), respectively. In propensity-score matching, BRAF/MEKi showed a tendency for longer PFS and equivalent OS with PD-1/CTLA-4 (HRs for PD-1/CTLA-4 were 1.78 [p = 0.149]) and 1.03 [p = 0.953], respectively). For patients who received second-line treatment, BRAF/MEKi followed by PD-1/CTLA-4 showed poor survival outcomes. The superiority of PD-1/CTLA-4 over BRAF/MEKi appears modest in Asian patients. First-line BRAF/MEKi remains feasible, but it is difficult to salvage at progression. Ethnicity should be considered when selecting systemic therapies until personalized biomarkers are available in daily practice. Further studies are needed to establish the optimal treatment sequence for Asian patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy is considered a preferred first-line treatment for advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. However, a recent international multi-center study suggested that the efficacy of immunotherapy is poorer in Asian patients in the non-acral cutaneous subtype. We hypothesized that the optimal first-line treatment for Asian patients may be different.
METHODS
We retrospectively collected data of Asian patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (Anti-PD-1), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (PD-1/CTLA-4) between 2016 and 2021 from 28 institutions in Japan.
RESULTS
We identified 336 patients treated with BRAF/MEKi (n = 236), Anti-PD-1 (n = 64) and PD-1/CTLA-4 (n = 36). The median follow-up duration was 19.9 months for all patients and 28.6 months for the 184 pa tients who were alive at their last follow-up. For patients treated with BRAF/MEKi, anti-PD-1, PD-1/CTLA-4, the median ages at baseline were 62, 62, and 53 years (p = 0.03); objective response rates were 69%, 27%, and 28% (p < 0.001); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7, 5.4, and 5.8 months (p = 0.003), and median overall survival (OS) was 34.6, 37.0 months, and not reached, respectively (p = 0.535). In multivariable analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS of Anti-PD-1 and PD-1/CTLA-4 compared with BRAF/MEKi were 2.30 (p < 0.001) and 1.38 (p = 0.147), and for OS, HRs were 1.37 (p = 0.111) and 0.56 (p = 0.075), respectively. In propensity-score matching, BRAF/MEKi showed a tendency for longer PFS and equivalent OS with PD-1/CTLA-4 (HRs for PD-1/CTLA-4 were 1.78 [p = 0.149]) and 1.03 [p = 0.953], respectively). For patients who received second-line treatment, BRAF/MEKi followed by PD-1/CTLA-4 showed poor survival outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The superiority of PD-1/CTLA-4 over BRAF/MEKi appears modest in Asian patients. First-line BRAF/MEKi remains feasible, but it is difficult to salvage at progression. Ethnicity should be considered when selecting systemic therapies until personalized biomarkers are available in daily practice. Further studies are needed to establish the optimal treatment sequence for Asian patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37584204
doi: 10.1002/cam4.6438
pmc: PMC10524053
doi:
Substances chimiques
CTLA-4 Antigen
0
Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf
EC 2.7.11.1
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
0
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
0
Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Kinases
EC 2.7.12.2
BRAF protein, human
EC 2.7.11.1
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17967-17980Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Cancer Med. 2020 Nov;9(21):7863-7878
pubmed: 32871054
Lancet Oncol. 2022 Jan;23(1):172-184
pubmed: 34895481
Cancer Res. 2017 Sep 1;77(17):4684-4696
pubmed: 28652244
N Engl J Med. 2019 Aug 15;381(7):626-636
pubmed: 31166680
J Clin Oncol. 2023 Jan 10;41(2):186-197
pubmed: 36166727
JCO Precis Oncol. 2021 Dec 16;5:
pubmed: 34950838
Future Oncol. 2019 Sep 1;15(25):2933-2942
pubmed: 30799646
Cancer Sci. 2017 Jun;108(6):1223-1230
pubmed: 28342215
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 17;381(16):1535-1546
pubmed: 31562797
Cancer Med. 2023 Sep;12(17):17967-17980
pubmed: 37584204
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2022 Apr;42:1-22
pubmed: 35658500
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2022 May 31;52(6):539-544
pubmed: 35349681
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Nov 20;38(33):3937-3946
pubmed: 32997575
J Clin Oncol. 2023 Jan 10;41(2):167-169
pubmed: 36126246
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Feb 15;25(4):1272-1279
pubmed: 30630828
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022 Nov;87(5):989-996
pubmed: 36068115
Cancer Sci. 2019 Jun;110(6):1995-2003
pubmed: 30959557
Nat Cancer. 2021 Jul;2(7):693-708
pubmed: 35121945
J Dermatol. 2020 Nov;47(11):1257-1266
pubmed: 32812243
Melanoma Res. 2019 Feb;29(1):1-12
pubmed: 30308577
Cancer Cell. 2021 Oct 11;39(10):1375-1387.e6
pubmed: 34416167
Br J Cancer. 2021 Mar;124(7):1222-1230
pubmed: 33495600
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Dec;105:114-126
pubmed: 30447539
J Transl Med. 2017 Aug 8;15(1):173
pubmed: 28789707
ESMO Open. 2021 Apr;6(2):100050
pubmed: 33556898
Science. 2021 Dec 24;374(6575):1632-1640
pubmed: 34941392
Future Oncol. 2022 Jun;18(18):2233-2245
pubmed: 35441522
Cancer Med. 2019 Dec;8(18):7637-7643
pubmed: 31677253
Science. 2018 Jan 5;359(6371):97-103
pubmed: 29097493
J Clin Oncol. 2023 Jan 10;41(2):212-221
pubmed: 36049147
Br J Dermatol. 2022 Sep;187(3):401-410
pubmed: 35293617
Br J Dermatol. 2021 Aug;185(2):253-262
pubmed: 32652567
J Immunother Cancer. 2022 Apr;10(4):
pubmed: 35383113
J Dermatol. 2018 Apr;45(4):397-407
pubmed: 29399853
Future Oncol. 2021 Feb;17(6):689-699
pubmed: 33084375
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2019 Jan 24;20(1):7
pubmed: 30675668
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2022 Dec;19(12):749-762
pubmed: 36207413
Nature. 2017 May 11;545(7653):175-180
pubmed: 28467829
Eur J Cancer. 2022 Jul;170:256-284
pubmed: 35623961
Eur J Cancer. 2022 May;167:32-41
pubmed: 35366571
Science. 2018 Feb 2;359(6375):582-587
pubmed: 29217585