Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33870464›Full record

ArticleCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2021

Response durability after cessation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter DeCOG study.

H M Stege, M Haist, S Schultheis, M I Fleischer, P Mohr, S Ugurel, P Terheyden, A Thiem, F Kiecker, U Leiter and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Merkel Cell Carcinoma.Hematology/oncology clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

H M Stege *Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. henner.stege@unimedizin-mainz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2994-7447
M Haist *Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
S SchultheisDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
M I FleischerDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
P MohrDepartment of Dermatology, Elbe-Kliniken Buxtehude, Buxtehude, Germany.
S UgurelDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Essen, Essen, Germany.
P TerheydenDepartment of Dermatology, Allergology and Venerology, University Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
A ThiemDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
F KieckerDepartment of Dermatology and Allergology at the Charité, University Medical Center Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
U LeiterDermato-Oncology, Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
J C BeckerDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Essen, Essen, Germany.
M MeissnerDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
J KleemanDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
C PföhlerDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Homburg, Homburg, Germany.
J HasselDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
S GrabbeDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
C LoquaiDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEElbe Kliniken Stade-Buxtehude · DEEssen University Hospital · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have led to a prolongation of progression-free and overall survival in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). However, immune-mediated adverse events due to ICI therapy are common and often lead to treatment discontinuation. The response duration after cessation of ICI treatment is unknown. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the time to relapse after discontinuation of ICI in MCC patients.

methodsWe analyzed 20 patients with metastatic MCC who have been retrospectively enrolled at eleven skin cancer centers in Germany. These patients have received ICI therapy and showed as best overall response (BOR) at least a stable disease (SD) upon ICI therapy. All patients have discontinued ICI therapy for other reasons than disease progression. Data on treatment duration, tumor response, treatment cessation, response durability, and tumor relapse were recorded.

resultsOverall, 12 of 20 patients (60%) with MCC relapsed after discontinuation of ICI. The median response durability was 10.0 months. Complete response (CR) as BOR to ICI-treatment was observed in six patients, partial response (PR) in eleven, and SD in three patients. Disease progression was less frequent in patients with CR (2/6 patients relapsed) as compared to patients with PR (7/11) and SD (3/3), albeit the effect of initial BOR on the response durability was below statistical significance. The median duration of ICI therapy was 10.0 months. Our results did not show a correlation between treatment duration and the risk of relapse after treatment withdrawal. Major reasons for discontinuation of ICI therapy were CR (20%), adverse events (35%), fatigue (20%), or patient decision (25%). Discontinuation of ICI due to adverse events resulted in progressive disease (PD) in 71% of patients regardless of the initial response. A re-induction of ICI was initiated in 8 patients upon tumor progression. We observed a renewed tumor response in 4 of these 8 patients. Notably, all 4 patients showed an initial BOR of at least PR.

conclusionOur results from this contemporary cohort of patients with metastatic MCC indicate that MCC patients are at higher risk of relapse after discontinuation of ICI as compared to melanoma patients. Notably, the risk of disease progression after discontinuation of ICI treatment is lower in patients with initial CR (33%) as compared to patients with initial PR (66%) or SD (100%). Upon tumor progression, re-induction of ICI is a feasible option. Our data suggest that the BOR to initial ICI therapy might be a potential predictive clinical marker for a successful re-induction.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Merkel CellCohort StudiesDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective StudiesSkin NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsDuration of responseImmune checkpoint inhibitorsMetastatic Merkel cell carcinomaRechallenge of immune checkpoint inhibitorsTreatment cessation

Identifiers

PMID33870464
PMCPMC8505278
OpenAlexW3155044719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.