Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Use and clinical impact of conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTx) subsequent to immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma

Date

09 Oct 2016

Session

Poster display

Presenters

Eoghan Malone

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 379-400. 10.1093/annonc/mdw379

Authors

E.R. Malone, M. Maltese, L. Coady, L. Hammond, N. Silva, G. Gullo, J. Crown

Author affiliations

  • Medical Oncology, St Vincents University Hospital, D04T6F4 - Dublin/IE
More

Resources

Background

In recent years the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM) has changed drastically with the introduction of immunotherapy (ITx) and targeted therapies. Only a minority of patients (pts) achieve a durable response to such treatments and CTx still has a significant ongoing role to play in the palliative treatment of MM in clinical practice. We aimed to assess the use of CTx in clinical practice since the introduction of ITx and its impact on pts outcome.

Methods

A retrospective database was constructed of all MM pts treated in our institution with ITx between 2011 and 2015 by the systematic cross-match of the Pharmacy and Medical Oncology archives. We then identified pts who received any type of CTx after at least one line of ITx. Objective response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR, including pts with SD for at least 3 months) were assessed using RECIST 1.1 criteria. Overall survival (OS) post ITx and post CTx were calculated.

Results

Sixty-four pts were treated with ITx between 2011 and 2015. 17 pts (27%) received any type of Ctx post ITx. All pts had documented progressive disease when commenced on CTx. CTx pts characteristics: male 10 (59%), female 7(41%), median age 60 (range 27-72), primary cutaneous 11 (64.7%), ocular 6 (35.3%), BRAF V600 mutation pos 4 (23.5%), ipilumumab-pretreated 16 (94.1%), ipilimumab and anti-PD1-pretreated 4 (23.5%). All BRAF positive pts received BRAF and/or MEK inhibitor in addition to ITx. CTx included single-agent DTIC 8 (47.1%), platinum salts-based poly-CTx 9 (52.9%). Median OS from commencement of CTx was 11 months (range 2-26). ORR (6/17) was 35.3%, CBR (7/17) was 41.2%. CBR in pts who received one vs two lines of ITx was 4/12 (38.5%) vs 3/4 (75%).

Conclusions

Our analysis shows that in real-world clinical practice about one third of MM pts are still treated with CTx after failure of ITx. Although limited by small numbers and retrospective design, the observed ORR/CBR in our cohort of unselected MM pts suggest that CTx after failure of ITx might have greater activity than in historical series. We are studying the molecular profile of these pts tumours in order to identify potential predictors of improved CTx benefit.

Clinical trial identification

Not applicable

Legal entity responsible for the study

N/A

Funding

N/A

Disclosure

J. Crown: Honoraria/Consulting/advisory - Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Genomic Health, Bayer, Teva, New Oncology Speakers Bureau - Pfizer, genomic Health Research funding - Roche, GSK, Eisai, Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings