Repository logoRepository logo
GRO
  • GRO.data
  • GRO.plan
Help
  • English
  • Deutsch
Log In
New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
Publications
Researcher
Organizations
Other
  • Journals
  • Series
  • Events
  • Projects
  • Working Groups

Browsing by Author "Dippel, Edgar"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 10 of 10
  • Results Per Page
  • Sort Options
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Cytotoxic/natural killer cell cutaneous lymphomas - Report of the EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force Workshop
    (John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2003)
    Santucci, M.
    ;
    Pimpinelli, N.
    ;
    Massi, D.
    ;
    Kadin, Marshall E.
    ;
    Meijer, CJLM
    ;
    Muller-Hermelink, H. K.
    ;
    Paulli, M.
    ;
    Wechsler, J.
    ;
    Willemze, R.
    ;
    Audring, H.
    ;
    Bernengo, M. G.
    ;
    Cerroni, L.
    ;
    Chimenti, S.
    ;
    Chott, A.
    ;
    Diaz-Perez, J. L.
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Duncan, L. M.
    ;
    Feller, A. C.
    ;
    Geerts, M. L.
    ;
    Hallermann, Christian
    ;
    Kempf, Werner
    ;
    Russell-Jones, R.
    ;
    Sander, C.  
    ;
    Berti, E.
    BACKGROUND. Cutaneous lymphomas expressing a cytotoxic or natural killer (NK) cell phenotype represent a group of lymphoproliferative disorders for which there is currently much confusion and little consensus regarding the best nomenclature and classification. METHODS. This study analyzes 48 cases of primary cutaneous lymphoma expressing cytotoxic proteins and/or the NK cell marker, CD56. These cases were collected for a workshop of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force, to better clarify the clinical, morphologic, and phenotypic features of these uncommon tumors. RESULTS. Several categories with different clinical and pathologic features were delineated: 1) aggressive, CD8+, epidermotropic, cytotoxic T-cell lymphoma; 2) mycosis fungoides, cytotoxic immunophenotype variant; 3) subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma; 4) NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type; 5) CD4+, NK cell lymphoma; 6) blastoid NK cell lymphoma; (7) intravascular NK-like lymphoma; and 8) cytotoxic, peripheral T-cell lymphoma. CONCLUSIONS. Our data show that primary cutaneous cytotoxic/NK cell lymphomas include distinct groups of diseases, clinically, histologically, and biologically. Because the finding of a cytotoxic phenotype often has prognostic significance, the routine use of cytotoxic markers in the diagnosis and classification of cutaneous lymphomas should be expanded. Cancer 2003;97:610-27. (C) 2003 American Cancer Society.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Diagnostics of autoimmune bullous diseases in German dermatology departments
    (Wiley-blackwell, 2012)
    van Beek, Nina
    ;
    Knuth-Rehr, Diana
    ;
    Altmeyer, Peter
    ;
    Assaf, Chalid
    ;
    Babilas, Philipp
    ;
    Bayerl, Christiane
    ;
    Benoit, Sandrine
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Effendy, Isaak
    ;
    Eming, Ruediger
    ;
    Fischer, Matthias
    ;
    Glaenz, Thomas
    ;
    Glaeser, Regine
    ;
    Goebeler, Matthias
    ;
    Gollnick, Harald
    ;
    Goetze, Steven
    ;
    Gross, Gerd
    ;
    Hadaschik, Eva
    ;
    Herbst, Rudolf A.
    ;
    Hermes, Barbara
    ;
    Homey, Bernhard
    ;
    Hunzelmann, Nico
    ;
    Juenger, Michael
    ;
    Kapp, Alexander
    ;
    Kern, Johannes S.
    ;
    Koerber, Andreas
    ;
    Luger, Thomas A.
    ;
    Mechtel, Dirk
    ;
    Megahed, Mosaad
    ;
    Moll, Ingrid
    ;
    Peters, Klaus-Peter
    ;
    Pfeiffer, Christiane
    ;
    Ring, Johannes
    ;
    Roecken, Martin
    ;
    Sardy, Miklos
    ;
    Seitz, Cornelia S.  
    ;
    Stadler, Rudolf
    ;
    Steinbrink, Kerstin
    ;
    Sticherling, Michael
    ;
    Szeimies, Rolf-Markus
    ;
    Tronnier, Michael
    ;
    Ulrich, Jens
    ;
    Vogt, Thomas
    ;
    Wagner, Nicola
    ;
    Welzel, Julia
    ;
    Wenzel, Joerg
    ;
    Wozel, Gottfried
    ;
    Zouboulis, Christos C.
    ;
    Zillikens, Detlef
    ;
    Schmidt, Enno
    Background: No consistent data are available on the currently employed diagnostic tools for autoimmune bullous diseases in Germany. The aim of this survey was to describe currently performed diagnostic methods for bullous autoimmune diseases in German dermatology departments. Methods: A standardized questionnaire evaluated the available diagnostic methods i. e. direct immunofluorescence microscopy (IFM), indirect IFM, commercial ELISA systems, and non-commercial serological tests as well as the number of samples per year in all 34 university and 39 non-university dermatology departments. Results: The overall return rate was 89 %, 100 % and 79 % for the university and non-university departments, respectively. Direct IFM was the most frequently used method and was applied in 98 % of the responding departments. In 74 % of the responding departments, indirect IFM was used mainly on monkey esophagus and human salt-split skin. Commercial ELISA systems were employed in 58 % of the clinics; all of them used anti-desmoglein ELISA, while anti-BP180 and anti-BP230 ELISA were established in 49 % and 48 % of departments, respectively. Non-commercial analytic methods were only performed in 22 % of the departments. Conclusions: The high return rate of this survey allows a relatively precise description of the current diagnostic methods used in German dermatology departments. Standard diagnostic tests are available nationwide and in bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus, the antigen-specific detection of autoantibodies is routinely performed in half of the departments. Rare disorders may be diagnosed by cooperation with some specialized centers.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: Patterns of Response and Survival According to the Presence of Hepatic and Extrahepatic Metastasis
    (MDPI, 2021)
    Koch, Elias
    ;
    Petzold, Anne
    ;
    Wessely, Anja
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Gesierich, Anja
    ;
    Gutzmer, Ralf
    ;
    Hassel, Jessica
    ;
    Haferkamp, Sebastian
    ;
    Hohberger, Bettina
    ;
    Heppt, Markus
    ;
    Thoms, Kai-Martin  
    ;
    Kähler, Katharina
    ;
    Knorr, Harald
    ;
    Kreuzberg, Nicole
    ;
    Leiter, Ulrike
    ;
    Loquai, Carmen
    ;
    Meier, Friedegund
    ;
    Meissner, Markus
    ;
    Mohr, Peter
    ;
    Pföhler, Claudia
    ;
    Rahimi, Farnaz
    ;
    Schadendorf, Dirk
    ;
    Schell, Beatrice
    ;
    Schlaak, Max
    ;
    Terheyden, Patrick
    ;
    Schuler-Thurner, Beatrice
    ;
    Ugurel, Selma
    ;
    Ulrich, Jens
    ;
    Utikal, Jochen
    ;
    Weichenthal, Michael
    ;
    Ziller, Fabian
    ;
    Berking, Carola
    ;
    Koch, Elias; Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, elias.koch@uk-erlangen.de Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area of Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, elias.koch@uk-erlangen.de
    ;
    Petzold, Anne; Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Anne.Petzold@uk-erlangen.de Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area of Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Anne.Petzold@uk-erlangen.de
    ;
    Wessely, Anja; Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Anja.Wessely@uk-erlangen.de Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area of Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Anja.Wessely@uk-erlangen.de
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar; Department of Dermatology, Ludwigshafen Medical Center, 67059 Ludwigshafen, Germany, dippele@klilu.de
    ;
    Gesierich, Anja; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany, gesierich_a@ukw.de
    ;
    Gutzmer, Ralf; Skin Cancer Center Minden, Department of Dermatology, Mühlenkreiskliniken AöR, Ruhr University Bochum Campus Minden, 32423 Minden, Germany, Ralf.Gutzmer@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
    ;
    Hassel, Jessica; Skin Cancer Center, Department of Dermatology and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany, Jessica.Hassel@med.uni-heidelberg.de
    ;
    Haferkamp, Sebastian; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany, sebastian.haferkamp@ukr.de
    ;
    Hohberger, Bettina; Department of Ophthalmology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Bettina.Hohberger@uk-erlangen.de
    ;
    Kähler, Katharina; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany, kckaehler@yahoo.de
    ;
    Knorr, Harald; Department of Ophthalmology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Harald.Knorr@uk-erlangen.de
    ;
    Kreuzberg, Nicole; Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Skin Cancer Center at the Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Köln Bonn, University Hospital of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany, nicole.kreuzberg@uk-koeln.de
    ;
    Leiter, Ulrike; Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, University Hospital Tübingen, 72056 Tübingen, Germany, Ulrike.Leiter@med.uni-tuebingen.de
    ;
    Loquai, Carmen; Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany, carmen.loquai@unimedizin-mainz.de
    ;
    Meier, Friedegund; Skin Cancer Center at the University Cancer Centre Dresden and National Center for Tumor Diseases & Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, 01307 Dresden, Germany, Friedegund.Meier@uniklinikum-dresden.de
    ;
    Meissner, Markus; Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, markus.meissner@kgu.de
    ;
    Mohr, Peter; Department of Dermatology, Elbeklinikum, 21614 Buxtehude, Germany, peter.mohr@elbekliniken.de
    ;
    Pföhler, Claudia; Department of Dermatology, Saarland University Medical School, 66421 Homburg/Saar, Germany, claudia.pfoehler@uks.eu
    ;
    Rahimi, Farnaz; Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Munich University Hospital (LMU), 81377 Munich, Germany, Farnaz.Rahimi@med.uni-muenchen.de
    ;
    Schadendorf, Dirk; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany, Dirk.Schadendorf@uk-essen.de German Cancer Consortium, Partner Site Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany, Dirk.Schadendorf@uk-essen.de
    ;
    Schell, Beatrice; Department of Dermatology, SRH Wald-Klinikum Gera, 07548 Gera, Germany, Beatrice.Schell@srh.de
    ;
    Schlaak, Max; Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany, max.schlaak@charite.de
    ;
    Terheyden, Patrick; Department of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany, patrick.terheyden@uksh.de
    ;
    Thoms, Kai-Martin; Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany, kai.thoms@med.uni-goettingen.de
    ;
    Schuler-Thurner, Beatrice; Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Beatrice.Schuler-Thurner@uk-erlangen.de Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area of Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Beatrice.Schuler-Thurner@uk-erlangen.de
    ;
    Ugurel, Selma; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany, Selma.Ugurel@uk-essen.de
    ;
    Ulrich, Jens; Department of Dermatology, Harzklinikum Dorothea Christiane Erxleben, 06484 Quedlinburg, Germany, jens.ulrich@harzklinikum.com
    ;
    Utikal, Jochen; Skin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 68167 Heidelberg, Germany, Jochen.Utikal@umm.de Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg, 68167 Mannheim, Germany, Jochen.Utikal@umm.de
    ;
    Weichenthal, Michael; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany, mweichenthal@dermatology.uni-kiel.de
    ;
    Ziller, Fabian; Department of Dermatology, DRK Krankenhaus Rabenstein, 09117 Chemnitz, Germany, Ziller.Fabian@drk-khs.de
    ;
    Berking, Carola; Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Carola.Berking@uk-erlangen.de Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area of Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Carola.Berking@uk-erlangen.de
    ;
    Heppt, Markus; Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Markus.Heppt@uk-erlangen.de Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area of Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Markus.Heppt@uk-erlangen.de
    ;
    on behalf of the German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group (DeCOG, Committee Ocular Melanoma)
    Background: Since there is no standardized and effective treatment for advanced uveal melanoma (UM), the prognosis is dismal once metastases develop. Due to the availability of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in the real-world setting, the prognosis of metastatic UM has improved. However, it is unclear how the presence of hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis impacts the response and survival after ICB. Methods: A total of 178 patients with metastatic UM treated with ICB were included in this analysis. Patients were recruited from German skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg). To investigate the impact of hepatic metastasis, two cohorts were compared: patients with liver metastasis only (cohort A, n = 55) versus those with both liver and extra-hepatic metastasis (cohort B, n = 123). Data were analyzed in both cohorts for response to treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The survival and progression probabilities were calculated with the Kaplan–Meier method. Log-rank tests, χ2 tests, and t-tests were performed to detect significant differences between both cohorts. Results: The median OS of the overall population was 16 months (95% CI 13.4–23.7) and the median PFS, 2.8 months (95% CI 2.5–3.0). The median OS was longer in cohort B than in cohort A (18.2 vs. 6.1 months; p = 0.071). The best objective response rate to dual ICB was 13.8% and to anti-PD-1 monotherapy 8.9% in the entire population. Patients with liver metastases only had a lower response to dual ICB, yet without significance (cohort A 8.7% vs. cohort B 16.7%; p = 0.45). Adverse events (AE) occurred in 41.6%. Severe AE were observed in 26.3% and evenly distributed between both cohorts. Conclusion: The survival of this large cohort of patients with advanced UM was more favorable than reported in previous benchmark studies. Patients with both hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis showed more favorable survival and higher response to dual ICB than those with hepatic metastasis only.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: Re-Induction following Resistance or Toxicity
    (MDPI, 2022-01-20)
    Koch, Elias A. T.
    ;
    Petzold, Anne
    ;
    Wessely, Anja
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Gesierich, Anja
    ;
    Gutzmer, Ralf
    ;
    Hassel, Jessica C.
    ;
    Haferkamp, Sebastian
    ;
    Kähler, Katharina C.
    ;
    Knorr, Harald
    ;
    Kreuzberg, Nicole
    ;
    Leiter, Ulrike
    ;
    Loquai, Carmen
    ;
    Meier, Friedegund
    ;
    Meissner, Markus
    ;
    Mohr, Peter
    ;
    Pföhler, Claudia
    ;
    Rahimi, Farnaz
    ;
    Schadendorf, Dirk
    ;
    Schell, Beatrice
    ;
    Schlaak, Max
    ;
    Terheyden, Patrick
    ;
    Thoms, Kai Martin  
    ;
    Schuler-Thurner, Beatrice
    ;
    Ugurel, Selma
    ;
    Ulrich, Jens
    ;
    Utikal, Jochen
    ;
    Weichenthal, Michael
    ;
    Ziller, Fabian
    ;
    Berking, Carola
    ;
    Heppt, Markus V.
    ;
    Koch, Elias A. T.; 1Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; elias.koch@uk-erlangen.de (E.A.T.K.); Anne.Petzold@uk-erlangen.de (A.P.); Anja.Wessely@uk-erlangen.de (A.W.); Beatrice.Schuler-Thurner@uk-erlangen.de (B.S.-T.); Carola.Berking@uk-erlangen.de (C.B.)
    ;
    Petzold, Anne; 1Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; elias.koch@uk-erlangen.de (E.A.T.K.); Anne.Petzold@uk-erlangen.de (A.P.); Anja.Wessely@uk-erlangen.de (A.W.); Beatrice.Schuler-Thurner@uk-erlangen.de (B.S.-T.); Carola.Berking@uk-erlangen.de (C.B.)
    ;
    Wessely, Anja; 1Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; elias.koch@uk-erlangen.de (E.A.T.K.); Anne.Petzold@uk-erlangen.de (A.P.); Anja.Wessely@uk-erlangen.de (A.W.); Beatrice.Schuler-Thurner@uk-erlangen.de (B.S.-T.); Carola.Berking@uk-erlangen.de (C.B.)
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar; 3Department of Dermatology, Ludwigshafen Medical Center, 67059 Ludwigshafen, Germany; dippele@klilu.de
    ;
    Gesierich, Anja; 4Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany; gesierich_a@ukw.de
    ;
    Gutzmer, Ralf; 5Skin Cancer Center Minden, Department of Dermatology, Mühlenkreiskliniken AöR, Ruhr University Bochum Campus Minden, 32423 Minden, Germany; Ralf.Gutzmer@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
    ;
    Hassel, Jessica C.; 6Skin Cancer Center, Department of Dermatology and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; Jessica.Hassel@med.uni-heidelberg.de
    ;
    Haferkamp, Sebastian; 7Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany; sebastian.haferkamp@ukr.de
    ;
    Kähler, Katharina C.; 8Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany; kkaehler@dermatology.uni-kiel.de (K.C.K.); mweichenthal@dermatology.uni-kiel.de (M.W.)
    ;
    Knorr, Harald; 9Department of Ophthalmology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; Harald.Knorr@uk-erlangen.de
    ;
    Kreuzberg, Nicole; 10Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Skin Cancer Center, Center of Integrated Oncology (CIO) Köln Bonn, University Hospital of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany; nicole.kreuzberg@uk-koeln.de
    ;
    Leiter, Ulrike; 11Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, University Hospital Tübingen, 72056 Tübingen, Germany; ulrike.leiter@med.uni-tuebingen.de
    ;
    Loquai, Carmen; 12Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany; carmen.loquai@unimedizin-mainz.de
    ;
    Meier, Friedegund; 13Skin Cancer Center, University Cancer Center Dresden and National Center for Tumor Diseases & Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, 01307 Dresden, Germany; Friedegund.Meier@uniklinikum-dresden.de
    ;
    Meissner, Markus; 14Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; markus.meissner@kgu.de
    ;
    Mohr, Peter; 15Department of Dermatology, Elbeklinikum, 21614 Buxtehude, Germany; peter.mohr@elbekliniken.de
    ;
    Pföhler, Claudia; 16Department of Dermatology, Saarland University Medical School, 66421 Homburg, Saar, Germany; claudia.pfoehler@uks.eu
    ;
    Rahimi, Farnaz; 17Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Munich University Hospital (LMU), 81377 Munich, Germany; Farnaz.Rahimi@med.uni-muenchen.de
    ;
    Schadendorf, Dirk; 18Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; Dirk.Schadendorf@uk-essen.de (D.S.); Selma.Ugurel@uk-essen.de (S.U.)
    ;
    Schell, Beatrice; 20Department of Dermatology, SRH Wald-Klinikum Gera, 07548 Gera, Germany; Beatrice.Schell@srh.de
    ;
    Schlaak, Max; 21Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, 10117 Berlin, Germany; max.schlaak@charite.de
    ;
    Terheyden, Patrick; 22Department of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany; patrick.terheyden@uksh.de
    ;
    Thoms, Kai-Martin; 23Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany; kai.thoms@med.uni-goettingen.de
    ;
    Schuler-Thurner, Beatrice; 1Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; elias.koch@uk-erlangen.de (E.A.T.K.); Anne.Petzold@uk-erlangen.de (A.P.); Anja.Wessely@uk-erlangen.de (A.W.); Beatrice.Schuler-Thurner@uk-erlangen.de (B.S.-T.); Carola.Berking@uk-erlangen.de (C.B.)
    ;
    Ugurel, Selma; 18Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; Dirk.Schadendorf@uk-essen.de (D.S.); Selma.Ugurel@uk-essen.de (S.U.)
    ;
    Ulrich, Jens; 24Department of Dermatology, Harzklinikum Dorothea Christiane Erxleben, 06484 Quedlinburg, Germany; jens.ulrich@harzklinikum.com
    ;
    Utikal, Jochen; 25Skin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg, 68167 Mannheim, Germany; Jochen.Utikal@umm.de
    ;
    Weichenthal, Michael; 8Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany; kkaehler@dermatology.uni-kiel.de (K.C.K.); mweichenthal@dermatology.uni-kiel.de (M.W.)
    ;
    Ziller, Fabian; 26Department of Dermatology, DRK Krankenhaus Rabenstein, 09117 Chemnitz, Germany; Ziller.Fabian@drk-khs.de
    ;
    Berking, Carola; 1Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; elias.koch@uk-erlangen.de (E.A.T.K.); Anne.Petzold@uk-erlangen.de (A.P.); Anja.Wessely@uk-erlangen.de (A.W.); Beatrice.Schuler-Thurner@uk-erlangen.de (B.S.-T.); Carola.Berking@uk-erlangen.de (C.B.)
    ;
    Heppt, Markus V.; 1Department of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; elias.koch@uk-erlangen.de (E.A.T.K.); Anne.Petzold@uk-erlangen.de (A.P.); Anja.Wessely@uk-erlangen.de (A.W.); Beatrice.Schuler-Thurner@uk-erlangen.de (B.S.-T.); Carola.Berking@uk-erlangen.de (C.B.)
    ;
    Kilic, Emine
    The era of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with nivolumab and pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) alone or in combination with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) has led to prolonged survival in patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM). However, the response to ICB is low in patients with uveal melanoma (UM). This retrospective multicenter study examines the effectiveness of re-induction with ICB in patients with metastatic UM. A re-induction was recorded when ICB treatment was initiated a second time after a first ICB treatment was discontinued due to resistance or toxicity. We compared two cohorts (re-induction of ICB vs. once-only ICB) and present evidence for the clinical activity of a re-induction with ICB in a small subgroup of patients. Abstract Re-induction with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) needs to be considered in many patients with uveal melanoma (UM) due to limited systemic treatment options. Here, we provide hitherto the first analysis of ICB re-induction in UM. A total of 177 patients with metastatic UM treated with ICB were included from German skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg). To investigate the impact of ICB re-induction, two cohorts were compared: patients who received at least one ICB re-induction (cohort A, n = 52) versus those who received only one treatment line of ICB (cohort B, n = 125). In cohort A, a transient benefit of overall survival (OS) was observed at 6 and 12 months after the treatment start of ICB. There was no significant difference in OS between both groups (p = 0.1) with a median OS of 16.2 months (cohort A, 95% CI: 11.1–23.8) versus 9.4 months (cohort B, 95% CI: 6.1–14.9). Patients receiving re-induction of ICB (cohort A) had similar response rates compared to those receiving ICB once. Re-induction of ICB may yield a clinical benefit for a small subgroup of patients even after resistance or development of toxicities.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Liver-directed treatment is associated with improved survival and increased response to immune checkpoint blockade in metastatic uveal melanoma: results from a retrospective multicenter trial
    (2023)
    Koch, Elias A. T.
    ;
    Petzold, Anne
    ;
    Wessely, Anja
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Eckstein, Markus
    ;
    Gesierich, Anja
    ;
    Gutzmer, Ralf
    ;
    Hassel, Jessica C.
    ;
    Knorr, Harald
    ;
    Kreuzberg, Nicole
    ;
    Heppt, Markus V.
    Abstract Metastases of uveal melanoma (UM) spread predominantly to the liver. Due to low response rates to systemic therapies, liver-directed therapies (LDT) are commonly used for tumor control. The impact of LDT on the response to systemic treatment is unknown. A total of 182 patients with metastatic UM treated with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) were included in this analysis. Patients were recruited from prospective skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg) of the German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group (DeCOG). Two cohorts were compared: patients with LDT (cohort A, n = 78) versus those without LDT (cohort B, n = 104). Data were analyzed for response to treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The median OS was significantly longer in cohort A than in cohort B (20.1 vs. 13.8 months; P = 0.0016) and a trend towards improved PFS was observed for cohort A (3.0 vs. 2.5 months; P = 0.054). The objective response rate to any ICB (16.7% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.0073) and combined ICB (14.1% vs. 4.5%, P = 0.017) was more favorable in cohort A. Our data suggest that the combination of LDT with ICB may be associated with a survival benefit and higher treatment response to ICB in patients with metastatic UM.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Optimizing immune checkpoint blockade in metastatic uveal melanoma: exploring the association of overall survival and the occurrence of adverse events
    (2024)
    Koch, Elias A. T.
    ;
    Petzold, Anne
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Erdmann, Michael
    ;
    Gesierich, Anja
    ;
    Gutzmer, Ralf
    ;
    Hassel, Jessica C.
    ;
    Haferkamp, Sebastian
    ;
    Kähler, Katharina C.
    ;
    Kreuzberg, Nicole
    ;
    Heppt, Markus V.
    Introduction Despite recent advancements in the treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma (UM), the availability of further treatment options remains limited and the prognosis continues to be poor in many cases. In addition to tebentafusp, immune checkpoint blockade (ICB, PD-1 (+/-) CTLA-4 antibodies) is commonly used for metastatic UM, in particular in HLA-A 02:01-negative patients. However, ICB comes at the cost of potentially severe immune-related adverse events (irAE). Thus, the selection of patient groups that are more likely to benefit from ICB is desirable. Methods In this analysis, 194 patients with metastatic UM undergoing ICB were included. Patients were recruited from German skin cancer sites and the ADOReg registry. To investigate the association of irAE occurrence with treatment response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) two cohorts were compared: patients without irAE or grade 1/2 irAE (n=137) and patients with grade 3/4 irAE (n=57). Results In the entire population, the median OS was 16.4 months, and the median PFS was 2.8 months. Patients with grade 3/4 irAE showed more favorable survival than patients without or grade 1/2 irAE (p=0.0071). IrAE occurred in 44.7% (87/194), and severe irAE in 29.4% (57/194) of patients. Interestingly, irColitis and irHepatitis were significantly associated with longer OS (p=0.0031 and p=0.011, respectively). Conclusions This data may indicate an association between irAE and favorable survival outcomes in patients with metastatic UM undergoing ICB treatment and suggests that a reduced tolerance to tumor antigens could be linked to reduced tolerance to self-antigens.
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Quality Assurance Project Melanoma: Results of the final Survey 4 Years after initial Diagnosis
    (Wiley-blackwell, 2013)
    Livingstone, E.
    ;
    Eigentler, T.
    ;
    Rompel, R.
    ;
    Meiss, F.
    ;
    Mauerer, A.
    ;
    Kaehler, Katharina C.
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Moellenhoff, K.
    ;
    Kilian, K. J.
    ;
    Kretschmer, Lutz  
    ;
    Debus, D.
    ;
    Windemuth-Kieselbach, C.
    ;
    Hauschild, Axel
    ;
    Schadendorf, Dirk
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Response to brentuximab vedotin in advanced stage MF/Sezary syndrome with low CD-30 expression: real-life data of the German Cutaneous Lymphoma Network
    (2021)
    Blazejak, Christoph
    ;
    Stranzenbach, Rene
    ;
    Klemke, Claus-Detlev
    ;
    Frenzel, Ann-Kathrin
    ;
    Mitteldorf, Christina
    ;
    Nicolay, Jan P.
    ;
    Wobser, Marion
    ;
    Schrufer, Philipp
    ;
    Stadler, Rudolf
    ;
    Gosmann, Janika
    ;
    Wehkamp, Ulrike
    ;
    Stendel, Sarja
    ;
    Booken, Nina
    ;
    Kreuter, Alexander
    ;
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Weyermann, Maria
    ;
    Assaf, Chalid
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    S2k‐Guidelines – Cutaneous lymphomas (ICD10 C82 ‐ C86): Update 2021
    (2022)
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Assaf, Chalid
    ;
    Becker, Jürgen C.
    ;
    Bergwelt‐Baildon, Michael
    ;
    Bernreiter, Sophie
    ;
    Cozzio, Antonio
    ;
    Eich, Hans 
T.
    ;
    Elsayad, Khaled
    ;
    Follmann, Markus
    ;
    Grabbe, Stephan
    ;
    Stadler, Rudolf
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    S2k‐Leitlinie – Kutane Lymphome (ICD10 C82–C86): Update 2021
    (2022)
    Dippel, Edgar
    ;
    Assaf, Chalid
    ;
    Becker, Jürgen C.
    ;
    Bergwelt‐Baildon, Michael
    ;
    Bernreiter, Sophie
    ;
    Cozzio, Antonio
    ;
    Eich, Hans T.
    ;
    Elsayad, Khaled
    ;
    Follmann, Markus
    ;
    Grabbe, Stephan
    ;
    Stadler, Rudolf

About

About Us
FAQ
ORCID
End User Agreement
Privacy policy
Cookie consent
Imprint

Contact

Team GRO.publications
support-gro.publications@uni-goettingen.de
Matrix Chat: #support_gro_publications
Feedback

Göttingen Research Online

Göttingen Research Online bundles various services for Göttingen researchers:

GRO.data (research data repository)
GRO.plan (data management planning)
GRO.publications (publication data repository)
Logo Uni Göttingen
Logo Campus Göttingen
Logo SUB Göttingen
Logo eResearch Alliance

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.