3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Anti-PD-1 antibody monotherapy versus anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy as first-line immunotherapy in unresectable or metastatic mucosal melanoma: a retrospective, multicenter study of 329 Japanese cases (JMAC study)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody monotherapy (PD1) has led to favorable responses in advanced non-acral cutaneous melanoma among Caucasian populations; however, recent studies suggest that this therapy has limited efficacy in mucosal melanoma (MCM). Thus, advanced MCM patients are candidates for PD1 plus anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) combination therapy (PD1 + CTLA4). Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in MCM, however, are limited. We aimed to compare the efficacies of PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 in Japanese advanced MCM patients.

          Patients and methods

          We retrospectively assessed advanced MCM patients treated with PD1 or PD1 + CTLA4 at 24 Japanese institutions. Patient baseline characteristics, clinical responses (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis, and toxicity was assessed to estimate the efficacy and safety of PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4.

          Results

          Altogether, 329 patients with advanced MCM were included in this study. PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 were used in 263 and 66 patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between both treatment groups, except for age (median age 71 versus 65 years; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 groups with respect to objective response rate (26% versus 29%; P = 0.26) or PFS and OS (median PFS 5.9 months versus 6.8 months; P = 0.55, median OS 20.4 months versus 20.1 months; P = 0.55). Cox multivariate survival analysis revealed that PD1 + CTLA4 did not prolong PFS and OS (PFS: hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.19, P = 0.30; OS: HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.38, P = 0.59). The rate of ≥grade 3 immune-related adverse events was higher in the PD1 + CTLA4 group than in the PD1 group (53% versus 17%; P < 0.001).

          Conclusions

          First-line PD1 + CTLA4 demonstrated comparable clinical efficacy to PD1 in Japanese MCM patients, but with a higher rate of immune-related adverse events.

          Highlights

          • Anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 antibody therapy (PD1 + CTLA4) is an option for patients with advanced mucosal melanoma (MCM).

          • Data on the efficacy of PD1 + CTLA4 compared with PD-1 monotherapy (PD1) for MCM, however, are limited.

          • We retrospectively analyzed data from 329 Japanese patients with advanced MCM treated with PD1 or PD1 + CTLA4.

          • No significant differences in objective response rate, progression-free survival, or overall survival were observed.

          • Immune-related adverse events resulting in treatment cessation were higher in the PD1 + CTLA4 group.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            PD-1 Blockade in Tumors with Mismatch-Repair Deficiency.

            Somatic mutations have the potential to encode "non-self" immunogenic antigens. We hypothesized that tumors with a large number of somatic mutations due to mismatch-repair defects may be susceptible to immune checkpoint blockade.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                ESMO Open
                ESMO Open
                ESMO Open
                Elsevier
                2059-7029
                25 November 2021
                December 2021
                25 November 2021
                : 6
                : 6
                : 100325
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Skin Oncology/Dermatology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
                [2 ]Department of Dermatologic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
                [3 ]Department of Dermatology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan
                [4 ]Department of Dermatology, Shinshu University, Matsumoto, Japan
                [5 ]Department of Dermatology, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan
                [6 ]Department of Dermatology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
                [7 ]Department of Dermatologic Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan
                [8 ]Department of Dermato-Oncology/Dermatology, National Hospital Organization Kagoshima Medical Center, Kagoshima, Japan
                [9 ]Department of Clinical Oncology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
                [10 ]Department of Dermatology, Mie University, Tsu, Japan
                [11 ]Department of Dermatology and Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
                [12 ]Department of Dermatology, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan
                [13 ]Department of Dermatology, Niigata Cancer Center, Niigata, Japan
                [14 ]Department of Dermatology, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Japan
                [15 ]Department of Geriatric and Environmental Dermatology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan
                [16 ]Department of Dermatology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
                [17 ]Department of Dermatology, Asahikawa Medical University, Asahikawa, Japan
                [18 ]Department of Dermatology, Fukui University, Fukui, Japan
                [19 ]Division of Dermatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan
                [20 ]Department of Dermatology, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
                [21 ]Department of Dermatology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Otsu, Japan
                [22 ]Department of Dermatology, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan
                [23 ]Department of Dermatology, Iwate Medical University, Morioka, Japan
                [24 ]Department of Dermatology, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, Urayasu, Japan
                [25 ]Department of Dermatology, Yamanashi University, Kofu, Japan
                Author notes
                [] Correspondence to: Prof. Yasuhiro Nakamura, Department of Skin Oncology/Dermatology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, 1397-1 Yamane, Hidaka, Saitama 350-1298, Japan. Tel: +81-42-984-4111 ynakamur@ 123456saitama-med.ac.jp
                Article
                S2059-7029(21)00287-8 100325
                10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100325
                8633880
                34839104
                a3a2909b-4ac4-42d2-a3c4-3dbcd9efb6d4
                © 2021 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                mucosal melanoma,anti-pd-1 antibody,anti-ctla-4 antibody,nivolumab,pembrolizumab,ipilimumab

                Comments

                Comment on this article