Adjuvant PD ‐1 inhibitor versus high‐dose interferon α‐2b for Chinese patients with cutaneous and acral melanoma: A retrospective cohort analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingjing Li ◽  
Jiuhong Wang ◽  
Dandan Li ◽  
Xizhi Wen ◽  
Ya Ding ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21516-e21516
Author(s):  
Jiuhong Wang ◽  
Jingjing Li ◽  
Xing Liu ◽  
Xizhi Wen ◽  
Dandan Li ◽  
...  

e21516 Background: The clinical efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors as an adjuvant treatment for Asian melanoma patients has not yet been determined. Methods: Thus, this single-centre, retrospective study analysed the clinical data of 90 Chinese patients with completely resected, stage III cutaneous or acral melanoma who received either adjuvant PD-1 inhibitor or high-dose interferon α-2b (HDI). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control baseline differences between the two treatment groups. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival (RFS), and the secondary end points included distance metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and incidence of first distant metastatic sites. Results: Anti-PD-1 treatment resulted in significantly longer RFS (18-month RFS, 53.3% versus 26.7%; 95% CI, 0.097-0.975; P < 0.05) and DMFS (18-month DMFS, 70.9% versus 46.1%; 95% CI, 0.13-0.945; P < 0.05) than HDI in cutaneous melanoma patients. However, adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment had no advantage over HDI in acral melanoma patients (18-month RFS, 30.0% versus 35.9%; P > 0.05; 18-month DMFS, 36.5% versus 63.6%; P > 0.05). The incidence of lung metastasis at first in the anti-PD-1 group was found to be significantly lower (12.5% versus 48.5%; P < 0.05) in cutaneous melanoma patients than in acral melanoma patients, but no difference in metastatic sites were observed between the two treatment groups among acral melanoma patients. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was similar between the two treatment groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, adjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment was well tolerated and yielded a significantly better prognosis than HDI in Chinese patients with stage IIIB/C cutaneous melanoma, but a significant difference was not observed in those with acral melanoma.


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 3658-3658
Author(s):  
Anthony R Mato ◽  
Ewelina A Protomastro ◽  
Tania Zielonka ◽  
Tatyana Feldman ◽  
Scott D Rowley ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3658 Background: While current front-line treatment options for the management of MCL are still debated, a growing consensus in the lymphoma community suggest that MCL pts show superior outcomes with either consolidative ASCT or dose-intensive treatment approaches over CHOP-like regimens and that cytarabine containing regimens achieve earlier and deeper (hence more durable) responses. On the other hand, such dose-intensive strategies can be difficult to administer to the elderly (a relevant issue with a median age at diagnosis of mid 60's) or in pts with comorbidities. Few studies have looked at the comparative effectiveness of initial therapies in MCL in the community setting. Methods: Utilizing KM and Cox regression analyses, we performed a single-center, retrospective cohort analysis to describe the survival experience of 139 MCL pts (med follow up 50 months) treated in the front-line setting with R-CHOP (n=35), R-HCVAD (n=63) or induction-chemotherapy followed by HDT-ASCT (n=41). The primary endpoints of this retrospective cohort analysis were overall (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). The proportional hazards assumption was met for this analysis. Results: The JTCC MCL outcomes database contains 214 total patient entries (newly dx + relapsed MCL) from 1993–2012 of which 139 pts met inclusion/exclusion criteria with complete outcomes data available. The R-CHOP, R-HCVAD and HDT-ASCT groups were comparable in terms of known prognostic factors including age (median 60), ECOG PS (median 1), MIPI score (median score 4, 30% int risk, 29% high risk) and Ki-67 (median 30% and range 5–95%). The median PFS was superior for pts treated with either R-HCVAD (53 months) or ASCT (63 months) (p=<.001, LR test, Figure) compared to R-CHOP (24 months). No significant difference (HR 1.15, p=.7, 95%CI .5–2.5) in PFS could be detected between pts age < 65 vs. those age >= 65 (n=25) treated with either R-HCVAD (med PFS 46 months) or HDT-ASCT (med PFS 54 months). Median OS favored pts treated with R-HCVAD or HDT-ASCT (103 months and 108 months respectively) over R-CHOP (67 months) but did not meet statistical significance (p=.16, LR test). Conclusions: These data represent the largest published single center experience of MCL patients treated in the front-line setting. Our results confirm a recent NCCN report showing benefit of dose-intensive/high dose strategies in MCL over conventional therapy with more than doubling median PFS over R-CHOP. Of notice when compared to recently updated STiL trial (Rummel ASCO 2012, abst #3) our results are c/w with a median PFS of 22 months after R-CHOP but appear superior to med PFS (35 months) seen with bendamustine-rituximab in MCL even in a subset of elderly pts >= age 65. Our results support the use of dose-intensive strategies in a fit geriatric patient population. Finally the excellent PFS seen in that setting represents a promising platform for integrating novel agents in combination and/or maintenance in future strategies to prevent recurrence and continue to improve MLC pts outcome. Disclosures: Mato: Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:Allos: Speakers Bureau; celgene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Goy:Milennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; J & J: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


2011 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 1498-1503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lili Mao ◽  
Lu Si ◽  
Zhihong Chi ◽  
Chuanliang Cui ◽  
Xinan Sheng ◽  
...  

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 1146
Author(s):  
Myron J. Levin ◽  
Victoria Divino ◽  
Drishti Shah ◽  
Mitch DeKoven ◽  
Joaquin Mould-Quevedo ◽  
...  

The burden of influenza is disproportionally higher among older adults. We evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of adjuvanted trivalent (aIIV3) compared to high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3e) against influenza and cardio-respiratory disease (CRD)-related hospitalizations/ER visits among adults ≥65 years during the 2019–2020 influenza season. Economic outcomes were also compared. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using prescription, professional fee claims, and hospital data. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding. IPTW-adjusted Poisson regression was used to evaluate the adjusted rVE of aIIV3 versus HD-IIV3e. All-cause and influenza-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were examined post-IPTW. Recycled predictions from generalized linear models were used to estimate adjusted costs. Adjusted analysis showed that aIIV3 (n = 798,987) was similarly effective compared to HD-IIV3e (n = 1,655,979) in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits (rVE 3.1%; 95% CI: −2.8%; 8.6%), hospitalizations due to any cause (−0.7%; 95% CI: −1.6%; 0.3%), and any CRD-related hospitalization/ER visit (0.9%; 95% CI: 0.01%; 1.7%). Adjusted HCRU and annualized costs were also statistically insignificant between the two cohorts. The adjusted clinical and economic outcomes evaluated in this study were comparable between aIIV3 and HD-IIV3e during the 2019–2020 influenza season.


2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 881-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander R. Levine ◽  
Lorna Carrasquillo ◽  
Jane Mueller ◽  
Mohamed Ismail Nounou ◽  
Edgar R. Naut ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Alboresi ◽  
Alice Sghedoni ◽  
Giulia Borelli ◽  
Stefania Costi ◽  
Laura Beccani ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document