Comparison Between First Line Target Therapy and Immunotherapy in Different Prognostic Categories of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Patients: An Italian Melanoma Intergroup Study

BackgroundBRAF 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 i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in oncology 2022-08, Vol.12, p.917999-917999
Hauptverfasser: 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
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BackgroundBRAF 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. MethodsThis 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). ResultsIn 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
ISSN:2234-943X
2234-943X
DOI:10.3389/fonc.2022.917999