Aim: Targeted therapy (TT) and immuno-oncology (IO) drugs are approved for patients with BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma (MM). We compared real-world outcomes for first-line (1L) TT versus 1L IO to evaluate optimal sequencing. Materials & methods: Physicians-identified BRAF mutant MM patients initiating 1L TT or IO therapies and extracted treatment, disease and clinical outcomes including disease response which were compared between TT and IO and individual regimens. Results: 440 MM patients (TT = 283, IO = 157) were identified. A higher proportion of TT patients had liver metastases (46.3 vs 35.0%) and abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (61.1 vs 42.7%). IO-treated had a RECIST-determined response rate of 45.9 versus 60.1% for TT and time on treatment of 7.2 versus 11.4 months, respectively. There was no survival difference between cohorts. Conclusion: Despite higher risk patients, 1L TT resulted in higher response rate and longer treatment duration suggesting a preferred 1L sequence.

To investigate patient preferences for clinical attributes of first-line metastatic melanoma treatments. Materials & methods: A discrete-choice experiment and best-worst scaling exercise were used to assess relative preferences for treatment attributes. Results: The 200 survey respondents had distinct preferences. Avoiding a 30% risk of colitis or hormone gland problems and avoiding severe fever were more important to respondents than avoiding a 20% risk of extreme sun sensitivity (p < 0.05). Patients preferred taking pills to receiving intravenous infusions in a clinic. When attributes were combined, approximately 85% of respondents preferred a risk profile similar to targeted therapy over a profile similar to immunotherapy, holding efficacy constant. Conclusion: Taking patient preferences into account can help patients get the full benefit from metastatic melanoma therapies.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective. Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually. Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%. Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Aim: To estimate incidence of stage III melanoma using the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging, 7th and 8th edition. Patients & methods: The SEER US cancer registry was analyzed (2010–2014). AJCC7 stages were recorded in the data; AJCC8 stages were inferred. Results: Of 106,195 melanoma patients, 7669 and 7342 had stage III melanoma by AJCC7 and AJCC8, respectively (95% overlap). Nearly 30% of patients with AJCC7 stage III melanoma were reclassified in a higher stage III group by AJCC8 versus 7% in lower stage group. Regardless of the AJCC edition, incidence of stage III melanoma has increased from 2010 to 2014 both overall and within each stage III group. Conclusion: Providing appropriate management to this growing population of high-risk patients is a priority.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

No abstract

No abstract