Edgar Dippel

Background/Objectives: Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer associated with significant mortality, underscoring the need for continued research efforts. COMBI-EU (NCT03944356) is a prospective, non-interventional study that aims to assess adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib usage in clinical practice, the impact of AE management, and the usage of app-based documentation on treatment adherence. Methods: Adults with complete surgical resection of stage III BRAF V600-mutant cutaneous melanoma were included. The primary endpoint was median time on treatment (TOT). Adverse event (AE) management was classified as either a high or low level of management. The rating of AE management based on a self-developed algorithm and rules from COMBI-APlus was used to analyze the impact of AE management on TOT. App-based documentation of medication intake and patient-reported outcomes (CANKADO PRO-React; version 6.0, 06.03.2019) was offered. Results: For 225 patients, the median TOT was 11.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.7, 12.0). Treatment was completed by 138 patients (61.3%); 37 (16.4%) discontinued due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs). TRAEs (≥1) were experienced by 181 patients (80.4%); the most common was pyrexia (38.2%). High-level AE management showed a trend toward improved treatment adherence (high versus low level: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49, 1.14); this improvement was significant with pyrexia management (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.93). Seventy-nine (35%) and 33 patients (15%) intended to use and eventually used the app, respectively. A similar proportion of patients remained on treatment for 12 months irrespective of app usage (use, 39.4% vs. non-use, 36.5%). Conclusions: High-level TRAE management showed a trend toward improved treatment adherence, which was statistically significant for pyrexia. Optional use of an app did not influence treatment adherence.

Background/Objectives: Advanced-stage mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS) are aggressive forms of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) for which treatment options are limited and prognosis is poor. Brentuximab vedotin (BV), an anti-CD30 antibody–drug conjugate, has demonstrated high response rates in patients with CD30 expression ≥ 10%. However, data on its efficacy in cases with low CD30 expression (<10%) remain scarce. Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluated the real-world efficacy of BV in patients with advanced-stage MF/SS and low CD30 expression. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 32 patients across 11 German CTCL expert centers. All patients had advanced-stage MF or SS with CD30 expression < 10% and received BV at the standard dose. Treatment response was assessed using EORTC-ISCL criteria. Results: All patients had received prior systemic therapies (median: 3) with 36% having undergone prior mono- or polychemotherapy. The study population included 30 MF (stage IIB) and two SS cases. The overall response rate (ORR) in this population was 53.1% (17/32). A complete response (CR) was achieved in 12.5% (4/32), a partial response (PR) was achieved in 40.6% (13/32), stable disease (SD) was seen in 18.8% (6/32), and progressive disease (PD) was seen in 28.1% (9/32). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.0 months (arithmetic mean: 6.38; range: 0.5–15.5), and the median time to next treatment (TTNT) was 7.25 months (arithmetic mean: 7.30; range: 2.00–15.5). Conclusions: BV demonstrated encouraging activity in heavily pretreated advanced MF/SS with low CD30 expression, achieving an ORR comparable to that observed in patients with higher CD30 levels. While response rates were similar, PFS was shorter. These findings suggest that BV remains a potential therapeutic option in this patient population and merits further prospective investigation.

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.

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.