Cargando…
Comparison Between First Line Target Therapy and Immunotherapy in Different Prognostic Categories of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Patients: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup Study
BACKGROUND: BRAF and MEK inhibitors target therapies (TT) and AntiPD1 immunotherapies (IT) are available first-line treatments for BRAF v600 mutant metastatic melanoma patients. ECOG PS (E), baseline LDH (L), and baseline number of metastatic sites (N) are well-known clinical prognostic markers that...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9421680/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36046043 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.917999 |
_version_ | 1784777646375174144 |
---|---|
author | Marconcini, Riccardo Fava, Paolo Nuzzo, Amedeo Manacorda, Simona Ferrari, Marco De Rosa, Francesco De Tursi, Michele Tanda, Enrica Teresa Consoli, Francesca Minisini, Alessandro Pimpinelli, Nicola Morgese, Francesca Bersanelli, Melissa Tucci, Marco Saponara, Maristella Parisi, Alessandro Ocelli, Marcella Bazzurri, Serena Massaro, Giulia Morganti, Riccardo Ciardetti, Isabella Stanganelli, Ignazio |
author_facet | Marconcini, Riccardo Fava, Paolo Nuzzo, Amedeo Manacorda, Simona Ferrari, Marco De Rosa, Francesco De Tursi, Michele Tanda, Enrica Teresa Consoli, Francesca Minisini, Alessandro Pimpinelli, Nicola Morgese, Francesca Bersanelli, Melissa Tucci, Marco Saponara, Maristella Parisi, Alessandro Ocelli, Marcella Bazzurri, Serena Massaro, Giulia Morganti, Riccardo Ciardetti, Isabella Stanganelli, Ignazio |
author_sort | Marconcini, Riccardo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: BRAF and MEK inhibitors target therapies (TT) and AntiPD1 immunotherapies (IT) are available first-line treatments for BRAF v600 mutant metastatic melanoma patients. ECOG PS (E), baseline LDH (L), and baseline number of metastatic sites (N) are well-known clinical prognostic markers that identify different prognostic categories of patients. Direct comparison between first-line TT and IT in different prognostic categories could help in first line treatment decision. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis conducted in 14 Italian centers on about 454 metastatic melanoma patients, divided in 3 groups: group A—patients with E = 0, L within normal range, and N less than 3; group B—patients not included in group A or C; group C—patients with E > 0, L over the normal range, and N more than 3. For each prognostic group, we compared TT and IT in terms of progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (DCR). RESULTS: In group A, results in 140 TT and 36 IT-treated patients were, respectively, median PFS 35.5 vs 11.6 months (HR (95% CI) 1.949 (1.180–3.217) p value 0.009); median OS not reached vs 55 months (HR (95% CI) 1.195 (0.602–2.373) p value 0.610); DCR 99% vs 75% p value <0.001). In group B, results in 196 TT and 38 IT-treated patients were, respectively, median PFS 11.5 vs 5 months (HR 1.535 (1.036–2.275) p value 0.033); median OS 19 vs 20 months (HR 0.886 (0.546–1.437) p value 0.623); DCR 85% vs 47% p value <0.001). In group C, results in 41 TT and 3 IT-treated patients were, respectively, median PFS 6.4 vs 1.8 months (HR 4.860 (1.399–16) p value 0.013); median OS 9 vs 5 months (HR 3.443 (0.991–11.9) p value 0.052); DCR 66% vs 33% p value 0.612). CONCLUSIONS: In good prognosis, group A—TT showed statistically significant better PFS than IT, also in a long-term period, suggesting that TT can be a good first line option for this patient category. It is only in group B that we observed a crossing of the survival curves after the 3rd year of observation in favor of IT. Few patients were enrolled in group C, so few conclusions can be made on it. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9421680 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94216802022-08-30 Comparison Between First Line Target Therapy and Immunotherapy in Different Prognostic Categories of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Patients: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup Study Marconcini, Riccardo Fava, Paolo Nuzzo, Amedeo Manacorda, Simona Ferrari, Marco De Rosa, Francesco De Tursi, Michele Tanda, Enrica Teresa Consoli, Francesca Minisini, Alessandro Pimpinelli, Nicola Morgese, Francesca Bersanelli, Melissa Tucci, Marco Saponara, Maristella Parisi, Alessandro Ocelli, Marcella Bazzurri, Serena Massaro, Giulia Morganti, Riccardo Ciardetti, Isabella Stanganelli, Ignazio Front Oncol Oncology BACKGROUND: BRAF and MEK inhibitors target therapies (TT) and AntiPD1 immunotherapies (IT) are available first-line treatments for BRAF v600 mutant metastatic melanoma patients. ECOG PS (E), baseline LDH (L), and baseline number of metastatic sites (N) are well-known clinical prognostic markers that identify different prognostic categories of patients. Direct comparison between first-line TT and IT in different prognostic categories could help in first line treatment decision. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis conducted in 14 Italian centers on about 454 metastatic melanoma patients, divided in 3 groups: group A—patients with E = 0, L within normal range, and N less than 3; group B—patients not included in group A or C; group C—patients with E > 0, L over the normal range, and N more than 3. For each prognostic group, we compared TT and IT in terms of progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (DCR). RESULTS: In group A, results in 140 TT and 36 IT-treated patients were, respectively, median PFS 35.5 vs 11.6 months (HR (95% CI) 1.949 (1.180–3.217) p value 0.009); median OS not reached vs 55 months (HR (95% CI) 1.195 (0.602–2.373) p value 0.610); DCR 99% vs 75% p value <0.001). In group B, results in 196 TT and 38 IT-treated patients were, respectively, median PFS 11.5 vs 5 months (HR 1.535 (1.036–2.275) p value 0.033); median OS 19 vs 20 months (HR 0.886 (0.546–1.437) p value 0.623); DCR 85% vs 47% p value <0.001). In group C, results in 41 TT and 3 IT-treated patients were, respectively, median PFS 6.4 vs 1.8 months (HR 4.860 (1.399–16) p value 0.013); median OS 9 vs 5 months (HR 3.443 (0.991–11.9) p value 0.052); DCR 66% vs 33% p value 0.612). CONCLUSIONS: In good prognosis, group A—TT showed statistically significant better PFS than IT, also in a long-term period, suggesting that TT can be a good first line option for this patient category. It is only in group B that we observed a crossing of the survival curves after the 3rd year of observation in favor of IT. Few patients were enrolled in group C, so few conclusions can be made on it. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-08-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9421680/ /pubmed/36046043 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.917999 Text en Copyright © 2022 Marconcini, Fava, Nuzzo, Manacorda, Ferrari, De Rosa, De Tursi, Tanda, Consoli, Minisini, Pimpinelli, Morgese, Bersanelli, Tucci, Saponara, Parisi, Ocelli, Bazzurri, Massaro, Morganti, Ciardetti and Stanganelli https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Marconcini, Riccardo Fava, Paolo Nuzzo, Amedeo Manacorda, Simona Ferrari, Marco De Rosa, Francesco De Tursi, Michele Tanda, Enrica Teresa Consoli, Francesca Minisini, Alessandro Pimpinelli, Nicola Morgese, Francesca Bersanelli, Melissa Tucci, Marco Saponara, Maristella Parisi, Alessandro Ocelli, Marcella Bazzurri, Serena Massaro, Giulia Morganti, Riccardo Ciardetti, Isabella Stanganelli, Ignazio Comparison Between First Line Target Therapy and Immunotherapy in Different Prognostic Categories of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Patients: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup Study |
title | Comparison Between First Line Target Therapy and Immunotherapy in Different Prognostic Categories of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Patients: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup Study |
title_full | Comparison Between First Line Target Therapy and Immunotherapy in Different Prognostic Categories of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Patients: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup Study |
title_fullStr | Comparison Between First Line Target Therapy and Immunotherapy in Different Prognostic Categories of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Patients: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison Between First Line Target Therapy and Immunotherapy in Different Prognostic Categories of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Patients: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup Study |
title_short | Comparison Between First Line Target Therapy and Immunotherapy in Different Prognostic Categories of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Patients: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup Study |
title_sort | comparison between first line target therapy and immunotherapy in different prognostic categories of braf mutant metastatic melanoma patients: an italian melanoma intergroup study |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9421680/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36046043 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.917999 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT marconciniriccardo comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT favapaolo comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT nuzzoamedeo comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT manacordasimona comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT ferrarimarco comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT derosafrancesco comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT detursimichele comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT tandaenricateresa comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT consolifrancesca comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT minisinialessandro comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT pimpinellinicola comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT morgesefrancesca comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT bersanellimelissa comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT tuccimarco comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT saponaramaristella comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT parisialessandro comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT ocellimarcella comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT bazzurriserena comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT massarogiulia comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT morgantiriccardo comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT ciardettiisabella comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy AT stanganelliignazio comparisonbetweenfirstlinetargettherapyandimmunotherapyindifferentprognosticcategoriesofbrafmutantmetastaticmelanomapatientsanitalianmelanomaintergroupstudy |