Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

e-Poster Display Session

37P - First-line BRAF/MEK-inhibitors versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy in BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients: A propensity-matched survival analysis

Date

09 Dec 2020

Session

e-Poster Display Session

Presenters

Jesper van Breeschoten

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_7): S1428-S1440. 10.1016/annonc/annonc391

Authors

J. van Breeschoten1, M. Wouters2, D. Hilarius3, J. Haanen4, C.U. Blank5

Author affiliations

  • 1 DICA - Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Amsterdam/NL
  • 2 DICA - Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden/NL
  • 3 Rodekruis Ziekenhuis Beverwijk, Beverwijk/NL
  • 4 Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL), Amsterdam/NL
  • 5 Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL), 1066CX - Amsterdam/NL
More

Abstract 37P

Background

Anti-PD-1 antibodies and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are the two main groups of systemic therapy in the treatment of BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. Until now, data is inconclusive on which therapy to use as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapy vs. BRAF/MEK inhibitors in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma patients.

Methods

We selected patients diagnosed between 2014-2017 with unresectable III or stage IV melanoma and a known BRAFV600-mutation treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD-1 antibodies, registered in the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were matched based on their propensity scores using the nearest neighbour and the optimal matching method.

Results

Between 2014-2017, a total of 330 and 254 unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients received BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-1 monotherapy as first-line systemic therapy. In the matched cohort, consisting of 310 patients, patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies as a first-line treatment had a higher median and twelve-month overall survival compared to patients treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, 42.3 months (95%CI: 37.3-NE) vs. 19.8 months (95%CI: 16.7-24.3) and 83.0% (95%CI: 77.3-89.2) vs. 65.3% (95%CI: 58.2-73.3).

Conclusions

Our data suggest that in the matched BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma patients, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is the preferred first-line treatment in patients with relatively favourable patient and tumour characteristics. Results from currently ongoing randomised clinical trials are awaited to confirm these results.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

J.B.A.G. Haanen: Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory/Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory/Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory/Consultancy: Celsius Therapeutics; Advisory/Consultancy: GSK; Advisory/Consultancy: Immunocore; Advisory/Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution): MSD; Advisory/Consultancy: Merck Serono; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution): Neon Therapeutics; Advisory/Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory/Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Advisory/Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory/Consultancy: Seattle Genetics. C.U. Blank: Research grant/Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): BMS; Research grant/Funding (institution): Nanostring; Advisory/Consultancy: MSD; Advisory/Consultancy: Roche; Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory/Consultancy: GSK; Advisory/Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory/Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory/Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory/Consultancy: GenMab; Advisory/Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options: Uniti Cars; Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options: Neon Therapeutics; Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options: Forty Seven. M. Aarts: Honoraria (self): BMS; Honoraria (self): Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self): Servier; Honoraria (self): MSD; Honoraria (self): Novartis. J.W. de Groot: Advisory/Consultancy: BMS; Advisory/Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory/Consultancy: Servier; Advisory/Consultancy: MSD; Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis. G.A. Hospers: Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory/Consultancy: Roche; Advisory/Consultancy: MSD; Advisory/Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis; Research grant/Funding (institution): Seerave. E. Kapiteijn: Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): BMS; Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory/Consultancy: Merck; Advisory/Consultancy: Pierre Fabre. K. Suijkerbuijk: Advisory/Consultancy: BMS; Advisory/Consultancy: MSD; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self): Roche. A.A.M. Van der Veldt: Advisory/Consultancy: BMS; Advisory/Consultancy: MSD; Advisory/Consultancy: Roche; Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory/Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory/Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory/Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory/Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory/Consultancy: Eisai. M. Boers-Sonderen: Advisory/Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory/Consultancy: MSD; Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis. A.J.M. van den Eertwegh: Advisory/Consultancy: BMS; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution): Roche; Advisory/Consultancy: MSD; Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings