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
3252 - Genes involved in DNA replication, chromatin remodeling and cell cycle as potential biomarkers for therapy outcome to immune therapy in patients with metastatic cutaneous malignant melanoma
Presenter: Fernanda Costa Svedman
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5545 - Phase Ib/II Study (SENSITIZE) assessing safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and clinical outcome of domatinostat in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma refractory/non-responding to prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy
Presenter: Jessica Hassel
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
5213 - Genomic landscape of primary malignant melanoma of esophagus
Presenter: Jie Dai
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2716 - A phase III, randomised, double-blind study of adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo post-surgery and radiation in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC)
Presenter: Danny Rischin
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3550 - ILLUMINATE 301: A randomized phase 3 study of tilsotolimod in combination with ipilimumab compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma following progression on or after anti-PD-1 therapy
Presenter: Marcus Butler
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1645 - PRIME002 - Early phase II study of Azacitidine and Carboplatin priming for Avelumab in patients with advanced melanoma who are resistant to immunotherapy
Presenter: Andre Van Der Westhuizen
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4440 - Pembrolizumab (pembro) Plus Lenvatinib (len) for First-Line Treatment of patients (pts) With Advanced Melanoma: Phase 3 LEAP-003 Study
Presenter: Alexander Eggermont
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3454 - Proof of concept study with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat in patients with resistant BRAFV600 mutated advanced melanoma
Presenter: Sanne Huijberts
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1832 - A phase Ia/Ib clinical study to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary anti-tumor activity of FCN-159 in patients with advanced melanoma harboring NRAS-aberrant (Ia) and NRAS-mutation (Ib).
Presenter: Lu Si
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3996 - A Phase I Clinical Trial Investigating the Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine UV1 in Combination with Pembrolizumab as First-Line Treatment of Patients with Malignant Melanoma
Presenter: Sanjiv Agarwala
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract