Abstract 4523
Background
Ipilimumab (Ip) is an option in Metastatic Melanoma (MM) patients (pt) in case of disease progression after antiPD1 (AP) treatment and BRAF+MEK inhibitors (BMi) administration (for BRAF mutated melanoma). Clinical trial are evaluating potential Ip-based combinations in 2nd/3rd line setting. Many studies underline the role of some parameters (as LDH, ECOG PS, Neutrophile/Leucocyte ratio) as progostic factors for immunotherapy used in first-line. We evaluate the prognostic role of some relevant clinical or laboratoristic parameters for Ip used in late line after AP, Bmi, in order to define pt that benefit most from Ip monotherapy in this setting.
Methods
A retrospective multicenter study was conducted in 8 Italian Oncology Centers, evaluating MM pt treated with Ip after AP and/or BMi. Endpoints were OS and PFS, Kaplan Mayer and Cox regression were applied for survival analysis.
Results
Among 200 pt that received AP or Bmi, 48 were eligible for Ip administration in 2nd/3rd line. Before Ip treatment, ECOG PS was 0 in 21 pt, number of metastatic sites was less then 3 in 14 pt, LDH was within normal range in 19 pt, NLR ratio (= baseline neutrophils/total leukocytes) was less then 0.7 in 28 pt: in univariate analysis, only ECOG PS and NLR resulted significantly associated with better PFS and OS. For pt with ECOG PS 0 or 1 medianPFS was 3.2, 2.3 month respectively (p value 0.0066; HR 0.377 IC95% 0.186-0.762), median OS was 12.1, 4.0 respectively (p value 0.0016 HR 0.287 IC95% 0.132-0.622). For pt with NLR <0,7 or > 0,7 medianPFS was 3.2, 2.0 month respectively (p value 0.002 HR 0.241 IC95% 0.0978-0.593), median OS was 7.63, 2.67 respectively (p value 0.0037 HR 0.251 IC95% 0.0986-0.0637) A score was counted for each pt considering the number of favorable basal factors present (ECOG PS 0, NLR<0.7), from 0 to 2. For pt with SCORE 0,1,2 medianPFS was 4.8, 2.4, 1.4 month respectively (p value 0.0009), median OS was 25.6, 5.8, 1.9 respectively (p value <0.0001).
Conclusions
ECOG PS 0, NLR <0.7, resulted prognostic factors associated with favorable PFS and OS of MM pt treated with Ip after AP or BMi progression. Subgroup with all these factors has a better prognosis. These data can help treatment choice and should be evaluated prospectively.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Italian Melanoma Intergroup.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
R. Marconcini: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: La Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Ipsen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
5520 - Patient’s Usability Test results of a CINV Diary Application For Smartphones
Presenter: Paz Fernandez
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2323 - Colorectal Telephone Assessment Pathway (CTAP) - A viable means of shortening time to a definitive diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer (CRC)
Presenter: Harriet Watson
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
6119 - Cancer Nursing and Social Media: Capturing the Zeitgeist
Presenter: Mark Foulkes
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1776 - Examination of mobile applications on breast cancer
Presenter: AYDANUR AYDIN
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4128 - E-health effectiveness to increase patient adherence for immunotherapy; a cost-benefit study.
Presenter: Maria José Dias
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3219 - Experiences of internet-based stepped care among individuals with recently diagnosed cancer and symptoms of anxiety and/or depression
Presenter: Anna Hauffman
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5010 - What do cancer patients know about their immunotherapy treatment?
Presenter: Mónica Arellano
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4503 - Prospective Comparison of Travel Burden, Cost and Time to Obtain Tumor Board Treatment Plan Through In-Person Visits vs. an AI Enabled Health Technology (N=1803)
Presenter: Rajendra Badwe
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4123 - Cancer care through the fire and flames: 3-year experience in the utilisation of electronic consultation and referral system at the Red Zone in Southern Thailand
Presenter: Nanthiya Rattanakhot
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2087 - The effect of e-mobile education on the quality of life in women with breast cancer
Presenter: Derya ÇInar
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract