Response and outcome of patients with melanoma skin metastases and immune checkpoint inhibition.
immune checkpoint inhibitors
ipilimumab
melanoma
nivolumab
skin metastases
Journal
International journal of cancer
ISSN: 1097-0215
Titre abrégé: Int J Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0042124
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Jul 2024
20 Jul 2024
Historique:
revised:
21
06
2024
received:
27
02
2024
accepted:
27
06
2024
medline:
20
7
2024
pubmed:
20
7
2024
entrez:
20
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
It is known, that different metastatic organ systems respond differently to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In this study, we aimed to investigate the extent to which skin/subcutaneous metastases respond to ICI or targeted therapies (TTs) and whether the response rate differs from that of distant metastases in the same patient. Patients with melanoma diagnosed between January 2021 and September 2023 with at least one skin/subcutaneous metastasis who had received therapy with ICI or TT in an advanced setting were included in the analysis. Best overall response (BOR) was classified according to the revised response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). The BOR of skin metastases and visceral metastases to ICI and TT was compared using the chi-square test. Skin metastases treated with ICI a first-line setting showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 44.1%. In contrast, visceral metastases had a higher ORR of 51.1%. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = .77). Regarding TT, the ORR for skin metastases was 57.1%, compared to 38.5% for visceral metastases (p = .59). Interestingly, the ORR for skin/subcutaneous metastases was notably lower with ICI compared to visceral metastases, in contrast to patients who underwent TT. Skin metastases showed a poorer response to ICI than visceral metastases. Therefore, careful monitoring is recommended to detect non-response early in patients with skin metastases as skin metastases may have a worse response than TT. A larger cohort is needed for a comprehensive analysis and confirmation of our results.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.
Références
Manola J, Atkins M, Ibrahim J, Kirkwood J. Prognostic factors in metastatic melanoma: a pooled analysis of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trials. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(22):3782‐3793.
Tsao H, Atkins MB, Sober AJ. Management of cutaneous melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(10):998‐1012.
Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(36):6199‐6206.
Schadendorf D, van Akkooi ACJ, Berking C, et al. Melanoma. Lancet. 2018;392(10151):971‐984.
Hauschild A, Grob JJ, Demidov LV, et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF‐mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open‐label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9839):358‐365.
Robert C, Grob JJ, Stroyakovskiy D, et al. Five‐year outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(7):626‐636.
Long GV, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, et al. Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF‐mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double‐blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386(9992):444‐451.
Wolchok JD, Chiarion‐Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Long‐term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(2):127‐137.
Dummer R, Ascierto PA, Gogas HJ, et al. Overall survival in patients with BRAF‐mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open‐label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(10):1315‐1327.
Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(1):30‐39.
Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(4):320‐330.
Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2521‐2532.
Hodi FS, Chiarion‐Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4‐year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1480‐1492.
Xu J, Zhao J, Wang J, Sun C, Zhu X. Prognostic value of lactate dehydrogenase for melanoma patients receiving anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 therapy: a meta‐analysis. Medicine. 2021;100(14):e25318.
Nishino M, Ramaiya NH, Hatabu H, Hodi FS. Monitoring immune‐checkpoint blockade: response evaluation and biomarker development. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(11):655‐668.
Morrison C, Pabla S, Conroy JM, et al. Predicting response to checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma beyond PD‐L1 and mutational burden. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):32.
Gibney GT, Weiner LM, Atkins MB. Predictive biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor‐based immunotherapy. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(12):e542‐e551.
Patel SP, Kurzrock R. PD‐L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in cancer immunotherapy. Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14(4):847‐856.
Davis AA, Patel VG. The role of PD‐L1 expression as a predictive biomarker: an analysis of all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7(1):278.
Placke JM, Kimmig M, Griewank K, et al. Correlation of tumor PD‐L1 expression in different tissue types and outcome of PD‐1‐based immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma ‐ analysis of the DeCOG prospective multicenter cohort study ADOREG/TRIM. EBioMedicine. 2023;96:104774.
Madore J, Vilain RE, Menzies AM, et al. PD‐L1 expression in melanoma shows marked heterogeneity within and between patients: implications for anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 clinical trials. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2015;28(3):245‐253.
Berberich C, Mustafa M, Zhuwu Y, Gaa J, Krackhardt A, Nekolla SG. The influence of metastatic patterns and tumor load on therapeutic efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma as determined by quantitative PET‐parameters using [18 F]‐fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography. Melanoma Res. 2023;33(3):199‐207.
Lee JHJ, Lyle M, Menzies AM, et al. Metastasis‐specific patterns of response and progression with anti‐PD‐1 treatment in metastatic melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2018;31(3):404‐410.
Davis EJ, Perez MC, Ayoubi N, et al. Clinical correlates of response to anti‐PD‐1‐based therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Immunother. 2019;42(6):221‐227.
Ribas A, Dummer R, Puzanov I, et al. Oncolytic virotherapy promotes intratumoral T cell infiltration and improves anti‐PD‐1 immunotherapy. Cell. 2017;170(6):1109‐1119.e10.
Weide B, Martens A, Wistuba‐Hamprecht K, et al. Combined treatment with ipilimumab and intratumoral interleukin‐2 in pretreated patients with stage IV melanoma‐safety and efficacy in a phase II study. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2017;66(4):441‐449.