4.7 Article

Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in patients with pre-treated, uveal melanoma

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages 2911-2915

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt376

Keywords

efficacy; expanded access programme; ipilimumab; metastatic melanoma; uveal melanoma; safety

Categories

Funding

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, the Italian Ministry of Health, via the Ricerca Finalizzata
  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with advanced uveal melanoma have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Ipilimumab is approved for pre-treated adult patients with advanced melanoma. However, because previous clinical trials with ipilimumab have excluded patients with uveal melanoma, data in this patient population are limited. Pre-treated patients with advanced uveal melanoma received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg through an expanded access programme, every 3 weeks for four doses. Tumour assessments were conducted at baseline and after completion of treatment and patients were monitored throughout for adverse events. Among 82 assessable patients, 4 (5%) had an immune-related objective response and 24 (29%) had immune-related stable disease lasting >= 3 months for an immune-related disease control rate of 34%. With a median follow-up of 5.6 months, median overall survival (OS) was 6.0 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. The 1-year rates of OS and PFS were 31% and 11%, respectively. The safety profile of ipilimumab was similar to that in patients with cutaneous melanoma. These data suggest ipilimumab 3 mg/kg is a feasible option in pre-treated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Evidence of disease control and a 1-year survival rate of 31% indicate the need for further investigation in randomised, controlled trials to determine the optimal timing and use of ipilimumab in this patient population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available