Abstract 1127P
Background
Unresectable or metastatic MM has been associated with worse survival and inferior treatment responses than cutaneous melanoma. ICIs are commonly used to treat advanced MM; however, robust conclusions on their efficacy are limited by small studies with heterogeneous patient populations.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to benchmark the efficacy of ICIs in advanced MM. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched in April 2023 using a combination of ICI and MM search terms, restricted to primary studies with at least 5 patients. Logit-transformed objective response rates (ORR) and adverse event (AE) rates were pooled using a random effects model and the inverse variance methods. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) Kaplan-Meier curves were digitalised and used to construct summary plots, from which median estimates were derived. Results are reported with 95% confidence intervals.
Results
28 studies reporting on ICIs in advanced MM were identified (n=2008). 37 treatment types were reported – 10 anti-CTLA4 (n=212), 21 anti-PD1 (n=1428) and 6 anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 (n=368). 62% of patients were treatment-naïve. Pooled ORR was 10% (7-13) for anti-CTLA4, 23% (22-28) for anti-PD1 and 31% (28-35) for anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 (P<0.001). Median PFS was 3.5 months (2.7-4.7) for anti-CTLA4, 4.0 months (2.9-5.2) for anti-PD1 and 4.7 months (3.6-6.6) for anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 (P<0.001). Median OS was 7.2 months (5.7-10.6) for anti-CTLA, 14.4 months (10.8-17.5) for anti-PD1 and 19.4 (13.8-21.2) for anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 (P<0.001). Grade 3 and higher AEs occurred in 36% (1-95) of patients for anti-CTLA4, 14% (11-18) for anti-PD1 and 50% (33-58) for anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1.
Conclusions
ICIs are associated with modest activity in patients with advanced MM. Although efficacy is slightly greater with combined anti-CTLA4/anti-PD1 compared to anti-PD1 alone, this was associated with a significantly high risk of grade 3+ AEs. Recommendations for combination ICI therapy should involve a risk-benefit analysis for individual patients. Research to identify predictive molecular biomarkers for ICI efficacy may help with treatment selection for advanced MM.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
R. Dummer: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Novartis; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD); Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS); Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Roche; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Amgen; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Takeda; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Pierre Fabre; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Sun Pharma; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Sanofi; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: CatalYm; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Second Genome; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Regeneron; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Alligator; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: MaviVAX SA; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Simcere; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: touchIME; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: T3 Pharma; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting and/or advisory role: Pfizer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1130P - Tebentafusp (tebe) in an ongoing cohort of 72 French patients (pts) with metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM)
Presenter: Leah Mailly-Giacchetti
Session: Poster session 13
1131P - Management of metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) patients on tebentafusp in a real-world setting
Presenter: Mauricio Fernando Ribeiro
Session: Poster session 13
1132P - Chemokine expression in uveal melanoma and association with tumor genetics and response to immunotherapy
Presenter: Aparna Nallagangula
Session: Poster session 13
1133P - SF3B1 mutation predicts improved overall survival in metastatic uveal melanoma patients: Molecular and clinical correlates
Presenter: Luis del Carpio Huerta
Session: Poster session 13
1134P - Safety and efficacy of low dose (LD) ipilimumab (Ipi) + pembrolizumab (pem) in checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) naïve patients (pts) with melanoma brain metastases (MBM)
Presenter: Isabella Glitza
Session: Poster session 13
1135P - Comparison of intracranial (IC) response assessment criteria in patients (pts) with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) treated with combination nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) in CheckMate 204
Presenter: Raymond Huang
Session: Poster session 13
1136P - Regorafenib combined with BRAF-/MEK-inhibitors for the treatment of refractory melanoma brain metastases
Presenter: Iris Dirven
Session: Poster session 13
1138P - Intralesional administration of L19IL2/L19TNF in difficult-to-treat non-melanoma skin cancer shows a favorable safety profile and preliminary clinical activity
Presenter: Lukas Flatz
Session: Poster session 13
1139P - Final results of a phase II study of pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs)
Presenter: Eve Maubec
Session: Poster session 13