Objectives: Since 2011, metastatic melanoma treatment has evolved with commercial approval of BRAF- and MEK-targeted therapy and CTLA-4- and PD-1-blocking antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). While novel therapies have demonstrated improved prognosis in clinical trials, few studies have examined the evolution of prognosis and toxicity of these drugs among an unselected population. We assess whether survival and toxicity reported in trials, which typically exclude most patients with brain metastases and poor performance status, are recapitulated within a commercial access population. Methods: 182 patients diagnosed with stage IV melanoma from July 2006 to December 2013 and treated with BRAF- and/or MEK-targeted therapy or ICI were prospectively studied. Outcomes and clinicopathologic differences between trial and commercial cohorts were assessed. Results: Patients receiving commercial therapy (vs. on trial) had poorer prognostic features (i.e., brain metastases) and lower median overall survival (mOS) when assessed across all treatments (9.2 vs. 17.5 months, p = 0.0027). While toxicity within trial and commercial cohorts did not differ, patients who experienced toxicity had increased mOS (p < 0.001), irrespective of stratification by trial status or therapy. Conclusion: Metastatic melanoma patients receiving commercial treatment may represent a different clinical population with poor prognostic features compared to trial patients. Toxicity may prognosticate treatment benefit.

Objectives: Since 2011, metastatic melanoma treatment has evolved with commercial approval of BRAF- and MEK-targeted therapy and CTLA-4- and PD-1-blocking antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). While novel therapies have demonstrated improved prognosis in clinical trials, few studies have examined the evolution of prognosis and toxicity of these drugs among an unselected population. We assess whether survival and toxicity reported in trials, which typically exclude most patients with brain metastases and poor performance status, are recapitulated within a commercial access population. Methods: 182 patients diagnosed with stage IV melanoma from July 2006 to December 2013 and treated with BRAF- and/or MEK-targeted therapy or ICI were prospectively studied. Outcomes and clinicopathologic differences between trial and commercial cohorts were assessed. Results: Patients receiving commercial therapy (vs. on trial) had poorer prognostic features (i.e., brain metastases) and lower median overall survival (mOS) when assessed across all treatments (9.2 vs. 17.5 months, p = 0.0027). While toxicity within trial and commercial cohorts did not differ, patients who experienced toxicity had increased mOS (p < 0.001), irrespective of stratification by trial status or therapy. Conclusion: Metastatic melanoma patients receiving commercial treatment may represent a different clinical population with poor prognostic features compared to trial patients. Toxicity may prognosticate treatment benefit.

Objectives: The impact of ethnicity and the socioeconomic status (SES) among Caucasians is not well studied. Here, we examine the impact of income on melanoma presentation and prognosis within a Caucasian cohort, accounting for ethnicity, as some reports suggest increased melanoma incidence in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) BRCA mutation carriers. Methods: We studied prospectively enrolled primary melanoma patients at New York University. SES data were estimated using United States' Census Bureau data and patient zip codes. We evaluated associations between ethnicity, SES, and baseline characteristics using the χ² test and multivariate logistic regression. We compared survival distributions using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazard ratios. Results: Of the 1,339 enrolled patients, AJ represented 32% (n = 423). Apart from AJ being older at presentation (p < 0.001), no significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between ethnic groups. Patients with a median household income (MHI) lower than the median of the cohort were significantly more likely to present with advanced stages (p < 0.001) compared to patients with a higher MHI. Shorter overall (p = 0.016) and post-recurrence survival (p = 0.042) was also observed in patients from lower-income households. Conclusion: Data suggest that disparities in melanoma presentation in Caucasians stratify according to income independent of ethnic background.

Objectives: The impact of ethnicity and the socioeconomic status (SES) among Caucasians is not well studied. Here, we examine the impact of income on melanoma presentation and prognosis within a Caucasian cohort, accounting for ethnicity, as some reports suggest increased melanoma incidence in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) BRCA mutation carriers. Methods: We studied prospectively enrolled primary melanoma patients at New York University. SES data were estimated using United States' Census Bureau data and patient zip codes. We evaluated associations between ethnicity, SES, and baseline characteristics using the χ² test and multivariate logistic regression. We compared survival distributions using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazard ratios. Results: Of the 1,339 enrolled patients, AJ represented 32% (n = 423). Apart from AJ being older at presentation (p < 0.001), no significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between ethnic groups. Patients with a median household income (MHI) lower than the median of the cohort were significantly more likely to present with advanced stages (p < 0.001) compared to patients with a higher MHI. Shorter overall (p = 0.016) and post-recurrence survival (p = 0.042) was also observed in patients from lower-income households. Conclusion: Data suggest that disparities in melanoma presentation in Caucasians stratify according to income independent of ethnic background.

Objectives: Age is an understudied factor when considering treatment options for melanoma. Here, we examine the impact of age on primary melanoma treatment in a prospective cohort of patients. Methods: We used logistic regression models to examine the associations between age and initial treatment, using recurrence and melanoma-specific survival as endpoints. Results: 444 primary melanoma patients were categorized into three groups by age at diagnosis: 19-45 years (24.3%), 46-70 (50.2%), and 71-95 (25.5%). In multivariate models, older patients experienced a higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio 3.34, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.53-7.25; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in positive biopsy margin rates or extent of surgical margins across age groups. Patients in the middle age group were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy than those in the older group (odds ratio 2.78, 95% CI 1.19-6.45; p = 0.02) and showed a trend to longer disease-free survival when receiving adjuvant therapy (p = 0.09). Conclusion: Our data support age as an independent negative prognostic factor in melanoma. Our data suggest that age does not affect primary surgical treatment but may affect decisions of whether or not patients receive postoperative treatment(s). Further work is needed to better understand the biological variables affecting treatment decisions and efficacy in older patients.

Objectives: Age is an understudied factor when considering treatment options for melanoma. Here, we examine the impact of age on primary melanoma treatment in a prospective cohort of patients. Methods: We used logistic regression models to examine the associations between age and initial treatment, using recurrence and melanoma-specific survival as endpoints. Results: 444 primary melanoma patients were categorized into three groups by age at diagnosis: 19-45 years (24.3%), 46-70 (50.2%), and 71-95 (25.5%). In multivariate models, older patients experienced a higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio 3.34, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.53-7.25; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in positive biopsy margin rates or extent of surgical margins across age groups. Patients in the middle age group were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy than those in the older group (odds ratio 2.78, 95% CI 1.19-6.45; p = 0.02) and showed a trend to longer disease-free survival when receiving adjuvant therapy (p = 0.09). Conclusion: Our data support age as an independent negative prognostic factor in melanoma. Our data suggest that age does not affect primary surgical treatment but may affect decisions of whether or not patients receive postoperative treatment(s). Further work is needed to better understand the biological variables affecting treatment decisions and efficacy in older patients.