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
2673 - Clinical activity of vofatamab (V), an FGFR3 selective antibody in combination with pembrolizumab (P) in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), updated interim analysis of FIERCE-22
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2600 - Atezolizumab (atezo) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): a long-term overall survival (OS) and safety update from the Phase III IMvigor211 study
Presenter: Michiel Van der Heijden
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3598 - Three-Year Follow-Up From the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 Trial: Pembrolizumab (Pembro) Versus Investigator’s Choice (Paclitaxel, Docetaxel, or Vinflunine) in Recurrent, Advanced Urothelial Cancer (UC)
Presenter: Andrea Necchi
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2382 - First Report of Efficacy and Safety From a Phase 2 Trial of Tislelizumab, an Anti-PD-1 Antibody, for the Treatment of PD-L1+ Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (UC) in Asian Patients
Presenter: Dingwei Ye
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2388 - Quality of Life of Metastatic Urothelial Cancer (mUC) Patients Treated with Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) Following Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy and a Checkpoint Inhibitor (CPI): Data from EV-201 Cohort 1
Presenter: Bradley McGregor
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3748 - Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (atezo) in patients (pts) with autoimmune disease (AID): subgroup analysis of the SAUL study in locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma
Presenter: Yohann Loriot
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1126 - Validation of the VIO prognostic index in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors
Presenter: Rafael Morales Barrera
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3693 - Pathologic outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk muscle invasive bladder cancer
Presenter: Justin Matulay
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4840 - Analysis of response to prior therapies and therapies after treatment with erdafitinib in fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)-positive patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1221 - Clinical outcomes by sex with atezolizumab (atezo) monotherapy in patients (pts) with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Jean Hoffman-censits
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract