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
3973 - A randomized phase II study on the OPTimization of IMmunotherapy in squamous carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) – OPTIM (AIO-KHT-0117)
Presenter: Viktor Grünwald
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3489 - Overall Survival (OS) and Metastasis-Free Survival (MFS) in men with Biochemically Relapsed (BCR) Prostate Cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) managed with deferred Androgen Deprivation Treatment (ADT): A combined Johns Hopkins and CPDR study
Presenter: Catherine Marshall
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4606 - ARCHES – the role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with enzalutamide (ENZA) or placebo (PBO) in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): Post hoc analyses of high and low disease volume and risk groups
Presenter: Arnulf Stenzl
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2975 - Updated survival analyses of a multicentric phase II randomized trial of docetaxel (D) plus enzalutamide (E) versus docetaxel (D) as first line chemotherapy for patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) (CHEIRON study).
Presenter: Orazio Caffo
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2708 - Real-world analysis of patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving vs not receiving chemotherapy in the treatment sequence
Presenter: Alicia Morgans
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2134 - Baseline fracture risk in men with prostate cancer starting the STAMPEDE trial
Presenter: Janet Brown
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3504 - Risk of falls and fractures in patients with castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) treated with new hormonal agents – a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Presenter: Rodrigo Coutinho Mariano
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2342 - Pain progression at initiation of chemotherapy in metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) is associated with a poor prognosis: a post-hoc analysis of FIRSTANA
Presenter: Nicolas Delanoy
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5331 - Pain evaluation in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with radium-223 (Ra-223) in the PARABO observation study
Presenter: Holger Palmedo
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2823 - Time to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and the risk of developing immune disorders
Presenter: Vincenza Conteduca
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract