Publication:
Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: Patterns of Response and Survival According to the Presence of Hepatic and Extrahepatic Metastasis

dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage3359
dc.bibliographiccitation.issue13
dc.bibliographiccitation.journalCancers
dc.bibliographiccitation.volume13
dc.contributor.affiliationKoch, 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
dc.contributor.affiliationPetzold, 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
dc.contributor.affiliationWessely, 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
dc.contributor.affiliationDippel, Edgar; Department of Dermatology, Ludwigshafen Medical Center, 67059 Ludwigshafen, Germany, dippele@klilu.de
dc.contributor.affiliationGesierich, Anja; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany, gesierich_a@ukw.de
dc.contributor.affiliationGutzmer, Ralf; Skin Cancer Center Minden, Department of Dermatology, Mühlenkreiskliniken AöR, Ruhr University Bochum Campus Minden, 32423 Minden, Germany, Ralf.Gutzmer@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
dc.contributor.affiliationHassel, 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
dc.contributor.affiliationHaferkamp, Sebastian; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany, sebastian.haferkamp@ukr.de
dc.contributor.affiliationHohberger, Bettina; Department of Ophthalmology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Bettina.Hohberger@uk-erlangen.de
dc.contributor.affiliationKähler, Katharina; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, 24105 Kiel, Germany, kckaehler@yahoo.de
dc.contributor.affiliationKnorr, Harald; Department of Ophthalmology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Harald.Knorr@uk-erlangen.de
dc.contributor.affiliationKreuzberg, 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
dc.contributor.affiliationLeiter, Ulrike; Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, University Hospital Tübingen, 72056 Tübingen, Germany, Ulrike.Leiter@med.uni-tuebingen.de
dc.contributor.affiliationLoquai, Carmen; Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany, carmen.loquai@unimedizin-mainz.de
dc.contributor.affiliationMeier, 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
dc.contributor.affiliationMeissner, Markus; Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, markus.meissner@kgu.de
dc.contributor.affiliationMohr, Peter; Department of Dermatology, Elbeklinikum, 21614 Buxtehude, Germany, peter.mohr@elbekliniken.de
dc.contributor.affiliationPföhler, Claudia; Department of Dermatology, Saarland University Medical School, 66421 Homburg/Saar, Germany, claudia.pfoehler@uks.eu
dc.contributor.affiliationRahimi, Farnaz; Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Munich University Hospital (LMU), 81377 Munich, Germany, Farnaz.Rahimi@med.uni-muenchen.de
dc.contributor.affiliationSchadendorf, 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
dc.contributor.authorKoch, Elias
dc.contributor.authorPetzold, Anne
dc.contributor.authorWessely, Anja
dc.contributor.authorDippel, Edgar
dc.contributor.authorGesierich, Anja
dc.contributor.authorGutzmer, Ralf
dc.contributor.authorHassel, Jessica
dc.contributor.authorHaferkamp, Sebastian
dc.contributor.authorHohberger, Bettina
dc.contributor.authorHeppt, Markus
dc.contributor.authorThoms, Kai-Martin
dc.contributor.authorKähler, Katharina
dc.contributor.authorKnorr, Harald
dc.contributor.authorKreuzberg, Nicole
dc.contributor.authorLeiter, Ulrike
dc.contributor.authorLoquai, Carmen
dc.contributor.authorMeier, Friedegund
dc.contributor.authorMeissner, Markus
dc.contributor.authorMohr, Peter
dc.contributor.authorPföhler, Claudia
dc.contributor.authorgroupon behalf of the German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group (DeCOG, Committee Ocular Melanoma)
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-12T07:45:52Z
dc.date.available2021-08-12T07:45:52Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.date.updated2022-02-09T13:20:46Z
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/cancers13133359
dc.identifier.eissn2072-6694
dc.identifier.piicancers13133359
dc.identifier.urihttps://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/88565
dc.item.fulltextWith Fulltext
dc.language.isoen
dc.notes.internDOI Import GROB-448
dc.publisherMDPI
dc.relation.eissn2072-6694
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleImmune Checkpoint Blockade for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: Patterns of Response and Survival According to the Presence of Hepatic and Extrahepatic Metastasis
dc.typejournal_article
dc.type.internalPublicationyes
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
cancers-13-03359-v2.pdf
Size:
1.38 MB
Format:
Unknown data format

Collections