Caroline Dutriaux

Nine drugs have been marketed for 10 years for the treatment of advanced melanoma (AM). With half of patients reaching a second line, the optimal sequence of treatments remains unclear. To inform policy-makers about their efficiency, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential strategies in clinical practice in France, for BRAF-mutated and wild-type patients. A multistate model was developed to describe treatment sequences, associated costs, and health outcomes over 10 years. Sequences, clinical outcomes, utility scores, and economic data were extracted from the prospective Melbase cohort, collecting individual data in 1518 patients since 2013, from their AM diagnosis until their death. To adjust the differences in patients’ characteristics among sequences, weighting by inverse probability was used. In the BRAF-mutated population, the MONO-targeted therapies (TT)-anti-PD1 sequence was the less expensive, whereas the anti-PD1-BI-TT sequence had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 180,441 EUR/QALY. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population, the three sequences constituted the cost-effective frontier, with ICERs ranging from 116 to 806,000 EUR/QALY. For BRAF-mutated patients, the sequence anti-PD1-BI-TT appeared to be the most efficient one in BRAF-mutated AM patients until 2018. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population until 2018, the sequence starting with IPI+NIVO appeared inefficient compared to anti-PD1, considering the extra cost for the QALY gained.

Purpose: Melanoma’s incidence is increasing, and elderly people could be significantly impacted since the majority occurs in people over 65 years of age. Combined BRAF and MEK targeted therapies (TT) are current standard regimen for BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma (MM). Except for subgroups of pivotal trials, little data are available for TT in this population. Materials and Methods: Outcomes were explored in real life patients from MelBase, a French multicentric biobank dedicated to the prospective follow-up of unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Patients treated by BRAF TT and/or MEK TT combined or not, were included from 2013 to 2017 in 2 groups: group 1 ≤ 65-year-old (yo), group 2 > 65 yo, analyzed for tolerance and efficacy. Results: 353 patients were included: 231 in group 1, 122 in group 2. Median follow-up was 12 months (M). Median time of treatment was 6.9 M. A total of 80% had at least one Adverse Effect (AE). Most frequent AE (all grades) were mainly skin and subcutaneous, general, and gastrointestinal disorders. A total of 31% of AE were grade 3–4: 28% in group 1 and 39% in group 2 (p = 0.05). No differences were observed in all AE grades proportion, dose modifications, interruptions, and discontinuations. For each group, median overall survival was 20.3 M (CI 95%: 15.5–27.9) and 16.3 M (CI: 14.5–26.9), respectively (p = 0.8). Median progression free survival was 7.8 M (6.4–9.9) and 7.7 M (CI: 5.8–11.3) (p = 0.4). Objective response rate was 59% and 50% (p = 0.6). Conclusion: This study on a large multicentric cohort is the first to assess that TT is well tolerated in elderly BRAF-mutated patients such as in patients younger than 65. Efficacy was similar between groups with outcomes reaching those from pivotal studies. There is thus no argument against using TT in elderly people, although an onco-geriatric opinion is welcome for the most vulnerable.

Purpose: Melanoma’s incidence is increasing, and elderly people could be significantly impacted since the majority occurs in people over 65 years of age. Combined targeted therapies (TT) are current standard regimen for BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma (MM). Except for subgroups of pivotal trials, little data are available for TT in this population. Materials and Methods: Outcomes were explored in real life patients from MelBase, a French multicentric biobank dedicated to the prospective follow-up of unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Patients treated by BRAF TT and/or MEK TT combined or not, were included from 2013 to 2017 in 2 groups: group 1 65 yo, analyzed for tolerance and efficacy. Results: 353 patients were included: 231 in group 1, 122 in group 2. Median follow-up was 12 months (M). Median time of treatment was 6.9 M. A total of 80% had at least one Adverse Effect (AE). Most frequent AE (all grades) were mainly skin and subcutaneous, general, and gastrointestinal disorders. A total of 31% of AE were grade 3–4: 28% in group 1 and 39% in group 2 (p = 0.05). No differences were observed in all AE grades proportion, dose modifications, interruptions, and discontinuations. For each group, median overall survival was 20.3 M (CI 95%: 15.5–27.9) and 16.3 M (CI: 14.5–26.9), respectively (p = 0.8). Median progression free survival was 7.8 M (6.4–9.9) and 7.7 M (CI: 5.8–11.3) (p = 0.4). Objective response rate was 59% and 50% (p = 0.6). Conclusion: This study on a large multicentric cohort is the first to assess that TT is well tolerated in elderly BRAF-mutated patients such as in patients younger than 65. Efficacy was similar between groups with outcomes reaching those from pivotal studies. There is thus no argument against using TT in elderly people, although an onco-geriatric opinion is welcome for the most vulnerable.

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of pimasertib (MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor) versus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with untreated NRAS-mutated melanoma. Phase II, multicenter, open-label trial. Patients with unresectable, stage IIIc/IVM1 NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma were randomized 2:1 to pimasertib (60 mg; oral twice-daily) or DTIC (1000 mg/m²; intravenously) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Patients progressing on DTIC could crossover to pimasertib. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and safety. Overall, 194 patients were randomized (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 64), and 191 received treatment (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 61). PFS was significantly improved with pimasertib versus DTIC (median 13 versus 7 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42–0.83; p = 0.0022). ORR was improved with pimasertib (odds ratio 2.24, 95% CI 1.00–4.98; p = 0.0453). OS was similar between treatments (median 9 versus 11 months, respectively; HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61–1.30); 64% of patients receiving DTIC crossed over to pimasertib. Serious adverse events (AEs) were more frequent for pimasertib (57%) than DTIC (20%). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were diarrhea (82%) and blood creatine phosphokinase (CPK) increase (68%) for pimasertib, and nausea (41%) and fatigue (38%) for DTIC. Most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were CPK increase (34%) for pimasertib and neutropenia (15%) for DTIC. Mean QoL scores (baseline and last assessment) were similar between treatments. Pimasertib has activity in NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma and a safety profile consistent with known toxicities of MEK inhibitors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01693068.

Despite significant progress in melanoma survival, therapeutic options are still needed in case of progression under immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and resistance to targeted therapies (TT) in BRAF-mutated melanomas. This study aimed to assess the safety of combined ICI and TT as a rescue line in real-life clinical practice. We conducted a study within the prospective French multicentric MelBase cohort, including patients treated with a combination of anti-PD1 (pembrolizumab/nivolumab) and BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi: dabrafenib/vemurafenib) and/or MEK inhibitors (MEKi: trametinib/cobimetinib) for BRAF mutated or wild-type advanced melanoma. Fifty-nine patients were included: 30% received the triple combination, 34% an anti-PD1 and BRAFi, and 36% an anti-PD1 and MEKi. Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 12% of patients. Permanent discontinuation or dose reduction of one of the treatments for toxicity was reported in 14% and 7% of patients, respectively. In the BRAF wild-type subgroup, treatment with MEKi and anti-PD1 induced a tumor control rate of 83% and median progression-free survival of 7.1 months. The combination of anti-PD1 and BRAFi and/or MEKi was a safe rescue line for advanced melanoma patients previously treated with ICI/TT. The benefit of these combinations, specifically anti-PD1 and MEKi in BRAF wild-type melanoma patients, needs to be prospectively studied.