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

Poster Display session 3

1618 - Comparative-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab vs. Nivolumab for Patients with Metastatic Melanoma


30 Sep 2019


Poster Display session 3



Tumour Site



Justin Moser


Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v533-v563. 10.1093/annonc/mdz255


J. Moser1, G. Wei2, S. Colonna3, K.F. Grossmann3, S. Patel3, J. Hyngstrom4

Author affiliations

  • 1 Drug Development And Medical Oncology, HonorHealth Research Institute, 85258 - Scottsdale/US
  • 2 Internal Medicine, Division Of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City/US
  • 3 Medical Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, 84112 - Salt Lake City/US
  • 4 Surgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, 84112 - Salt Lake City/US


Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1618


Anti-PD-1 antibodies have changed the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic melanoma. Two of these antibodies, pembrolizumab (P) and nivolumab (N), are currently FDA approved in the frontline setting for these patients. The efficacy of these drugs has not been directly compared; thus we aimed to compare the overall survival for patients with metastatic melanoma treated with either front line P or N in routine clinical practice.


This study included patients with advanced melanoma treated with frontline P or N using the U.S. nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived database. Overall survival (OS) from the start of frontline therapy was estimated for each treatment group using Kaplan-Meier curves with a log-rank test. OS comparative-effectiveness was estimated using a propensity score-matched Cox regression model to reduce bias for pairs of P (n = 371) and N treated subjects (n = 371). Propensity scores were generated using age, gender, ECOG, LDH (elevated or not), BRAF (mutated or not), KIT (mutated or not), NRAS (mutated or not), PD-L1 expression (0% or greater), BMI and primary site.


From a total of 7650 melanoma patients, 888 had advanced disease treated with frontline P (n = 486) or N (n = 402). 58% of N treated patients received flat 240 mg q2 week dosing and 38% of P treated patients received flat 200 mg q3 week dosing. Median OS for patients treated with P was 22.6 months(m) and was 23.9 m for those treated with N (p = 0.91). In the propensity score matched analysis (n = 742), there was no difference in survival between patients treated with P or N (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.87-1.39).


In our retrospective real world analysis of patients with advanced melanoma, no statistical difference in OS was noted between patients treated with frontline P compared to N. This supports the current practice of choosing either P or N based on patient and provider preference.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Huntsman Cancer Institute.


Has not received any funding.


K.F. Grossmann: Advisory / Consultancy: Array BioPharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Castle Biosciences. S. Patel: Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.