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

1144P - Clinical predictors of therapeutic benefit from anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients (pts) with metastatic uveal melanoma

Date

17 Sep 2020

Session

E-Poster Display

Topics

Immunotherapy

Tumour Site

Melanoma

Presenters

April Rose

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_4): S672-S710. 10.1016/annonc/annonc280

Authors

A.A.N. Rose1, D. Kelly1, D. Hogg1, M.O. Butler2, S. Saibil1, H. Krema1, I. King3, Z. Saeed Kamil1, D. Ghazarian1, D.P. Arteaga Ceballos1, D.V. Araujo4, T. Muniz1, J. Waldron1, N. Laperriere1, A. Spreafico5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, UHN - Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, M5G 2C1 - Toronto/CA
  • 2 Medical Oncology And Hematology Department, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, M5G 2M9 - Toronto/CA
  • 3 Medical Oncology, UHN - Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, M5G 1Z5 - Toronto/CA
  • 4 Medical Oncology Department, University Health Network - Princess Margaret Cancer Center, M5G 2M9 - Toronto/CA
  • 5 Division Of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, M5G 1Z5 - Toronto/CA

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1144P

Background

Metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) is a rare disease, for which no systemic therapy has demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit. Anti-PD1 +/- anti-CTLA4 ICI yields responses in 0-37% of mUM pts. This study evaluates the characteristics associated with ICI benefit in pts with mUM.

Methods

We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of pts with mUM who received anti-PD1 +/- anti-CTLA4 ICI between 2014–19. Clinical characteristics, including baseline LDH and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were abstracted from chart review. Treatment response (TR, any tumor shrinkage with no new growth) was determined by radiographic assessment and clinical progression was determined by physician assessment. Risk ratios (RR) and Fisher’s exact test were used to make comparisons between groups. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess clinical progression free survival (cPFS) and OS.

Results

Of 75 mUM pts who received ICI, 55 (73%) had anti-PD1 and 20 (27%) had anti-PD1 + anti-CTLA4. Pt characteristics were: 35 (47%) male, median age 64 yrs (34-89), 56 (75%) had 0-1 prior systemic therapies, 28 (37%) with NLR ≥4, 30 (40%) with LDH ≥1.5xULN, 34 (45%) were diagnosed (dx) stage IV <2 years after initial dx. The median OS from time of ICI was 10.0mo. TR to ICI was observed in 9 (12.2%) of pts. Characteristics associated with cPFS and OS are indicated in the table. Pts (n=25) with > 2yrs from initial dx to stage IV and LDH <1.5xULN were more likely to experience tumor shrinkage (RR 3.9; P=0.053), longer cPFS (5.8 vs. 2.4mo; HR 0.4; 95%CI 0.2-0.7; P=0.001) and longer OS (34.5 vs. 8.3mo; HR 0.3; 95%CI 0.1-0.5; P<0.001). Genomic analyses are ongoing. Table: 1144P

Univariable Multivariable
HR 95% CI p-value HR 95% CI p-value
cPFS
Age >65 1.0 0.6-1.7 0.859 - - -
Male 0.8 0.5-1.3 0.389 - - -
>1 prior therapy 0.7 0.4-1.4 0.178 - - -
PD1+CTLA4 vs. PD1 1.1 0.6-1.8 0.789 - - -
LDH ≥1.5xULN 2.4 1.4-3.9 0.001 3.8 2.2-6.8 <0.001
Initial dx to stg IV <2yrs 1.8 1.1-2.9 0.016 2.2 1.3-3.7 0.002
NLR ≥4 1.6 1.0-2.5 0.076 1.9 1.1-3.2 0.014
OS
Age >65 1.8 1.1-3.2 0.030 - - -
Male 1.0 0.6-1.7 0.982 - - -
>1 prior therapy 0.7 0.4-1.3 0.283 - - -
PD1+CTLA4 vs. PD1 1.2 0.6-2.3 0.588 - - -
LDH ≥1.5xULN 4.0 2.3-7.1 <0.001 4.4 2.4-7.9 <0.001
initial dx to stg IV <2yrs 1.9 1.1-3.3 0.016 2.5 1.4-4.3 0.002
NLR ≥4 1.7 1.0-2.9 0.060 2.1 1.2-3.7 0.014

Conclusions

Clinical features associated with ICI treatment benefit in mUM include: LDH<1.5xULN, NLR<4 and time from initial dx to stage IV > 2years. In the absence of randomized controlled trials; real world evidence can be used to aid clinicians in optimizing treatment selection for mUM.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

A.A.N. Rose: Spouse/Financial dependant: Merck. A. Spreafico: Advisory/Consultancy: Merck; Advisory/Consultancy: Bristol-Meyers Squibb; Advisory/Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory/Consultancy: Oncorus; Advisory/Consultancy: Janssen; Research grant/Funding (self): Merck; Research grant/Funding (self): Bayer; Research grant/Funding (self): Surface Oncology; Research grant/Funding (self): Novartis; Research grant/Funding (self): Bristol Meyers Squibb; Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Research grant/Funding (self): Northern Biologics; Research grant/Funding (self): Janssen; Research grant/Funding (self): Roche; Research grant/Funding (self): Regeneron; Research grant/Funding (self): Alkermes; Research grant/Funding (self): Array Biopharma. 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
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.