203
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase II DeCOG-study of ipilimumab in pretreated patients with different subtypes of metastatic melanoma

      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

          Ipilimumab is an approved immunotherapy that has shown an overall survival benefit in patients with cutaneous metastatic melanoma in two phase III trials. As results of registrational trials might not answer all questions regarding safety and efficacy of ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma seen in daily clinical practice, the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in patients with different subtypes of metastatic melanoma.

          Patients and methods

          We undertook a multicenter phase II study in melanoma patients irrespective of location of the primary melanoma. Here we present data on patients with pretreated metastatic cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma who received up to four cycles of ipilimumab administered at a dose of 3 mg/kg in 3 week intervals. Tumor assessments were conducted at baseline, weeks 12, 24, 36 and 48 according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. Adverse events (AEs), including immune-related AEs were graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) v.4.0. Primary endpoint was the OS rate at 12 months.

          Results

          103 pretreated patients received at least one dose of ipilimumab, including 83 cutaneous, seven mucosal and 13 occult melanomas. 1-year OS rates for cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma were 38 %, 14 % and 27 %, respectively. Median OS was 6.8 months (95 % CI 5.3–9.9) for cutaneous, 9.6 months (95 % CI 1.6–11.1) for mucosal, and 9.9 months (lower 95 % CI 2.3, upper 95 % CI non-existent) for occult melanoma. Overall response rates for cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma were 16 %, 17 % and 11 %, respectively. Eleven patients had partial response (16 %) and ten patients experienced stable disease (14 %), none achieved a complete response. Treatment-related AEs were observed in 71 patients (69 %), including 20 grade 3–4 events (19 %). No new and unexpected safety findings were noted.

          Conclusions

          Ipilimumab is a treatment option for pretreated patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma seen in daily routine. Toxicity was manageable when treated as per protocol-specific guidelines.

          Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01355120

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12967-015-0716-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

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

          Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification.

          To revise the staging system for cutaneous melanoma on the basis of data from an expanded American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Melanoma Staging Database. The melanoma staging recommendations were made on the basis of a multivariate analysis of 30,946 patients with stages I, II, and III melanoma and 7,972 patients with stage IV melanoma to revise and clarify TNM classifications and stage grouping criteria. Findings and new definitions include the following: (1) in patients with localized melanoma, tumor thickness, mitotic rate (histologically defined as mitoses/mm(2)), and ulceration were the most dominant prognostic factors. (2) Mitotic rate replaces level of invasion as a primary criterion for defining T1b melanomas. (3) Among the 3,307 patients with regional metastases, components that defined the N category were the number of metastatic nodes, tumor burden, and ulceration of the primary melanoma. (4) For staging purposes, all patients with microscopic nodal metastases, regardless of extent of tumor burden, are classified as stage III. Micrometastases detected by immunohistochemistry are specifically included. (5) On the basis of a multivariate analysis of patients with distant metastases, the two dominant components in defining the M category continue to be the site of distant metastases (nonvisceral v lung v all other visceral metastatic sites) and an elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase level. Using an evidence-based approach, revisions to the AJCC melanoma staging system have been made that reflect our improved understanding of this disease. These revisions will be formally incorporated into the seventh edition (2009) of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and implemented by early 2010.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2, dose-ranging study.

            Ipilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and has shown promising activity in advanced melanoma. We aimed to ascertain the antitumour efficacy of ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. We undertook a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial in 66 centres from 12 countries. 217 patients with previously treated stage III (unresectable) or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned a fixed dose of ipilimumab of either 10 mg/kg (n=73), 3 mg/kg (n=72), or 0.3 mg/kg (n=72) every 3 weeks for four cycles (induction) followed by maintenance therapy every 3 months. Randomisation was done with a permuted block procedure, stratified on the basis of type of previous treatment. The primary endpoint was best overall response rate (the proportion of patients with a complete or partial response, according to modified WHO criteria). Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, whereas safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of ipilimumab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00289640. The best overall response rate was 11.1% (95% CI 4.9-20.7) for 10 mg/kg, 4.2% (0.9-11.7) for 3 mg/kg, and 0% (0.0-4.9) for 0.3 mg/kg (p=0.0015; trend test). Immune-related adverse events of any grade arose in 50 of 71, 46 of 71, and 19 of 72 patients at doses of 10 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, and 0.3 mg/kg, respectively; the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were gastrointestinal immune-related events (11 in the 10 mg/kg group, two in the 3 mg/kg group, none in the 0.3 mg/kg group) and diarrhoea (ten in the 10 mg/kg group, one in the 3 mg/kg group, none in the 0.3 mg/kg group). Ipilimumab elicited a dose-dependent effect on efficacy and safety measures in pretreated patients with advanced melanoma, lending support to further studies at a dose of 10 mg/kg. Bristol-Myers Squibb. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade: new immunotherapeutic modalities with durable clinical benefit in melanoma patients.

              Immune checkpoint blockade with monoclonal antibodies directed at the inhibitory immune receptors CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1 has emerged as a successful treatment approach for patients with advanced melanoma. Ipilimumab is the first agent associated with a documented improved overall survival benefit in this patient population. A striking attribute of CTLA-4 blockade is the durability of objective responses, leading to speculation of a possible cure for some patients. Many tumor responses achieved with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition were durable in the phase I trials and were seen in a higher proportion of patients with melanoma than typically observed with ipilimumab. Biomarker development to identify the subset of patients with melanoma who will achieve durable clinical benefit with checkpoint blockade is critical; tumor PD-L1 expression has been promising in early studies. The contrast between unprecedented response rates but limited durability of responses achieved with BRAF and MEK inhibition in BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma and the impressive durability but relatively low rate of response achieved with immune checkpoint blockade is striking. Preclinical data on potential synergies between CTLA-4/PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition and MAPK-targeted therapy is emerging, and combined immune checkpoint blockade and MAPK inhibition are being explored in clinical trials. Other promising approaches to increase the number of patients with melanoma who benefit from durable responses with immune checkpoint blockade include concurrent or sequenced CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition and combination with other immunotherapeutic strategies. Clin Cancer Res; 19(19); 5300-9. ©2013 AACR.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lisa.zimmer@uk-essen.de
                thomas.eigentler@med.uni-tuebingen.de
                felix.kiecker@charite.de
                Jan.simon@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
                jochen.utikal@umm.de
                peter.mohr@elbekliniken.de
                carola.berking@med.uni-muenchen.de
                Kaempgen@dermatologikum-berlin.de
                dippele@klilu.de
                rudolf.stadler@muehlenkreiskliniken.de
                ahauschild@dermatology.uni-kiel.de
                michael.fluck@fachklinik-hornheide.de
                patrick.terheyden@uksh.de
                rompel@klinikum-kassel.de
                Carmen.Loquai@unimedizin-mainz.de
                zeinab.jradi.assi@gmail.com
                claus.garbe@uni-tuebingen.de
                dirk.schadendorf@uk-essen.de
                Journal
                J Transl Med
                J Transl Med
                Journal of Translational Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1479-5876
                6 November 2015
                6 November 2015
                2015
                : 13
                : 351
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, University Hospital, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, Center for Dermatooncology, University Medical Center Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig Germany,
                [ ]Skin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, Elbekliniken Stade Buxtehude, Buxtehude, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, Dermatologikum Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Skin Cancer Center Rheinpfalz, Ludwigshafen, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, Medical Centre Minden, Minden, Germany
                [ ]University Department of Dermatology, Kiel, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology Hornheide, Münster, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, Clinical Centre Kassel, Kassel, Germany
                [ ]Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany
                Article
                716
                10.1186/s12967-015-0716-5
                4635983
                26541511
                af893d76-67e4-4679-b381-e86454f168d4
                © Zimmer et al. 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 July 2015
                : 26 October 2015
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                phase ii,melanoma,cutaneous melanoma,mucosal melanoma,occult melanoma,ipilimumab,anti-ctla-4
                Medicine
                phase ii, melanoma, cutaneous melanoma, mucosal melanoma, occult melanoma, ipilimumab, anti-ctla-4

                Comments

                Comment on this article