Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

The real-world impact of modern treatments on the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Combining conventional therapy with immunotherapy: A risky business?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Establishing the European Norm for the health-related quality of life domains of the computer-adaptive test EORTC CAT Core

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. The real-world outcome of metastatic melanoma: Unknown primary vs. known cutaneous

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Rare cause of spontaneous haemothorax: mediastinal and distant lymph node metastases from uveal melanoma

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Arginase-1-based vaccination against the tumor microenvironment: the identification of an optimal T-cell epitope

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  4. Chimeric antigen receptor-T-cellebehandling

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  5. Real-World Impact of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

Between 2010 and 2015, pivotal trials with strict enrolment criteria led to the approval of several new treatments for metastatic melanoma (MM). We sought to determine the impact of these treatments in the 'real world'. We took advantage of the Danish MM database (DAMMED), which contains data on the entire, unselected population diagnosed with MM within Denmark. All MM cases (excluding ocular MM, n = 837) diagnosed in three non-consecutive years marked by major changes in the first-line treatments (2012: interleukin-2 and BRAF inhibitors; 2014: anti-CTLA-4: Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4 and 2016: anti-PD-1: programmed cell death protein 1 and MEK inhibitors) were retrieved. Patients were grouped into 'trial-like' and 'trial-excluded' based on the common trial eligibility criteria. In the 'trial-like' population (39% of all MM), the median overall survival (OS) was not reached in 2016 versus 18.8 months in 2014 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.75; p = 0.0005) and 16.5 months in 2012 (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.63; p < 0.0001). In the 'trial-excluded' population (61% of all MM), 75% had brain metastases and/or (performance status) PS ≥ 2. Here, the median OS improved to 6.9 months in 2016 versus 5.2 months in 2014 (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.84; p = 0.0008) and 4.2 months in 2012 (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.84; p = 0.0007). Subgroup analysis of the BRAF wild-type population showed an improved 1-year survival rate in 2016 versus 2014 (35.9% vs 18.8%, p = 0.0153). In conclusion, the introduction of modern treatments has led to an improved survival of real-world patients with MM, regardless of their eligibility to clinical trials and the BRAF status. These data support the application of modern treatments to patient populations which are not represented in pivotal trials.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
Volume108
Pages (from-to)25-32
Number of pages8
ISSN0959-8049
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2019

ID: 56133556