Dataset Information

First-line treatment of metastatic melanoma: role of nivolumab.

ABSTRACT: Historically, the median overall survival of metastatic melanoma patients was less than 1 year and long-term survivors were rare. Recent advances in therapies have dramatically shifted this landscape with increased survival rates and the real possibility that long-term disease control is achievable. Advances in immune modulators, including cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 and programmed death-1 based treatments, have been an integral part of this success. In this article, we review previous and recent therapeutic developments for metastatic melanoma patients. We discuss advances in immunotherapy while focusing on the use of nivolumab alone and in combination with other agents, including ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. One major goal in melanoma research is to optimize combination strategies allowing for more patients to experience benefit while minimizing toxicity. A better understanding of the optimal sequencing, combinations, and mechanisms underlying the development of resistance may provide evidence for rational clinical trial designs of novel immunotherapy strategies in melanoma and other cancer subtypes.

SUBMITTER: Force J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5315343 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

First-line treatment of metastatic melanoma: role of nivolumab.

Force Jeremy J Salama April Ks AK

ImmunoTargets and therapy 20170213

Historically, the median overall survival of metastatic melanoma patients was less than 1 year and long-term survivors were rare. Recent advances in therapies have dramatically shifted this landscape with increased survival rates and the real possibility that long-term disease control is achievable. Advances in immune modulators, including cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 and programmed death-1 based treatments, have been an integral part of this success. In this article, we review previous and ...[more]

PMID: 28243579

Similar Datasets

Project description:The approval of new immunotherapies has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of metastatic melanoma. These survival gains come with trade-offs in side effects and costs, as well as important considerations for third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients.To develop a Markov model to determine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination as firstline therapy in metastatic melanoma, while accounting for differential effectiveness in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive and negative patients.A 3-state Markov model (PD-L1 positive stable disease, PD-L1 negative stable disease, and progression and/or death) was developed using a U.S. societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon of 14.5 years. Transition probabilities were calculated from progression-free (PF) survival data reported in the CheckMate-067 trial. Costs were expressed in 2015 U.S. dollars and were determined using national sources. Adverse event (AE) management was determined using immune-related AE (irAE) data from CheckMate-067, irAE management guides for nivolumab and ipilimumab, and treatment guidelines. Utilities were obtained from published literature, using melanoma-specific studies when available, and were weighted based on incidence and duration of irAEs. Base case, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not the cost-effective choice ($454,092 per PF quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) compared with nivolumab monotherapy in a base case analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per PFQALY. Combination therapy and nivolumab monotherapy were cost-effective choices compared with ipilimumab monotherapy. PD-L1 positive status, utility of nivolumab and combination therapy, and medication costs contributed the most uncertainty to the model. In a population of 100% PD-L1 negative patients, nivolumab was still the optimal treatment, but combination therapy had an improved incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $295,903 per PFQALY. Combination therapy became dominated by nivolumab, when 68% of the sample was PD-L1 positive. In addition, the cost of ipilimumab would have to decrease to < $21,555 per dose for combination therapy to have an ICER < $100,000 per PFQALY and to < $19,151 (a 42% reduction) to be more cost-effective than nivolumab monotherapy.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not cost-effective compared with nivolumab monotherapy, which was the most cost-effective option. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic implications of these new immunotherapies as they make value-based formulary decisions, and future cost-effectiveness studies are completed.No funding supported this study. Merino was a contractor with EMD Serono at the time of this study but does not have any conflicts of interest and did not receive any funding related to this study. All other authors have no financial disclosures and no conflicts of interest. All the authors contributed to the study concept and design. Tran, McDowell, and Barcelon took the lead in data collection, along with Oh, Keyvani, and Merino. All authors except Merino contributed to data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Oh, Tran, McDowell, and Wilson and revised by Oh, Tran, McDowell, Wilson, and Keyvani. This analysis was presented at Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016, April 19-22, 2016, in San Francisco, California, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual International Meeting, May 21-25, 2016, in Washington DC.

Project description:IntroductionA high proportion of metastatic melanoma patients do not respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and until now, no validated biomarkers for response and survival have been known.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with first-line ICI at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana from January 2018 to December 2020. The immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and serum immune-inflammation parameters (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (LR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV)) were analyzed as potential biomarkers for response and survival. Survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and then compared with the log-rank test. Multivariate regression Cox analysis was used to determine independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsMedian follow-up was 22.5 months. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 15 months (95% CI 3.3-26.2). The two-year survival rate (OS) was 66.6%. Among 129 treated patients, 24 (18.6%) achieved complete response, 28 (21.7%) achieved partial response, 26 (20.2%) had stable disease and 51 (39.5%) patients experienced a progressive disease. There was a higher response rate in patients with irAEs (p < 0.001) and high NLR before the second cycle of ICI (p = 0.052). Independent prognostic factors for PFS were irAE (HR 0.41 (95% CI 0.23-0.71)), SII before the first cycle of ICI (HR 1.94 (95% CI 1.09-3.45)) and PLR before the second cycle of ICI (HR 1.71 (95% CI 1.03-2.83)). The only independent prognostic factor for OS was SII before the first cycle of ICI (HR 2.60 (95% CI 0.91-7.50)).ConclusionsPatients with high pre-treatment levels of SII had a higher risk of progression and death; however, patients with irAEs in the high-SII group might respond well to ICI. Patients who develop irAEs and have high NLRs before the second ICI application have higher rates of CR and PR, which implicates their use as early biomarkers for responsiveness to ICI.

Project description:ImportanceRecently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsA Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresLife-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.ResultsNivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY).Conclusions and relevanceIn this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

Dataset Information

First-line treatment of metastatic melanoma: role of nivolumab.

Publications

First-line treatment of metastatic melanoma: role of nivolumab.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets