4.7 Article

Melanoma recurrence patterns and management after adjuvant targeted therapy: a multicentre analysis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 124, 期 3, 页码 574-580

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-01121-y

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship
  2. University of Sydney Medical Foundation
  3. Melanoma Institute Australia
  4. Cancer Institute NSW Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD-1 therapy, with outcomes similar to those seen when first-line anti-PD-1 therapy is used in stage IV melanoma.
Background Adjuvant targeted therapy (TT) improves relapse free survival in patients with resected BRAF mutant stage III melanoma. The outcomes and optimal management of patients who relapse after adjuvant TT is unknown. Methods Patients from twenty-one centres with recurrent melanoma after adjuvant TT were included. Disease characteristics, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, treatment at relapse and outcomes were examined. Results Eighty-five patients developed recurrent melanoma; nineteen (22%) during adjuvant TT. Median time to first recurrence was 18 months and median follow-up from first recurrence was 31 months. Fifty-eight (68%) patients received immunotherapy (IT) or TT as 1st line systemic therapy at either first or subsequent recurrence and had disease that was assessable for response. Response to anti-PD-1 (+/- trial agent), combination ipilimumab-nivolumab, TT rechallenge and ipilimumab monotherapy was 63%, 62% 25% and 10% respectively. Twenty-eight (33%) patients had died at census, all from melanoma. Two-year OS was 84% for anti-PD-1 therapy (+/- trial agent), 92% for combination ipilimumab and nivolumab, 49% for TT and 45% for ipilimumab monotherapy (p = 0.028). Conclusions Patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD-1 based therapy and have outcomes similar to those seen when first line anti-PD-1 therapy is used in stage IV melanoma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据