Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Sigrun Hallmeyer
Based on 5 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, Sigrun Hallmeyer wrote the following 5 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Review Sequencing of New and Old Therapies for Metastatic Melanoma. 2016

Ratterman, Megan / Hallmeyer, Sigrun / Richards, Jon. ·Advocate Health Care, 1700 Luther Lane, Park Ridge, IL, 60068, USA. · Advocate Health Care, 1700 Luther Lane, Park Ridge, IL, 60068, USA. jrichards@oncmed.net. ·Curr Treat Options Oncol · Pubmed #27515170.

ABSTRACT: OPINION STATEMENT: Identification of BRAF driver mutations and agents that block their activity combined with development of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have dramatically changed survival and quality of life for patients with metastatic melanoma. Approximately half of patients with metastatic melanoma do not harbor mutations in the BRAF gene and therefore cannot benefit from currently available agents that target this mutation. Additionally, few patients with metastatic melanoma achieve durable disease control with these targeted therapies alone. Conversely, immune-based therapies have the potential to treat melanomas with or without mutations and produce durable responses following discontinuation of therapy, but responses can be delayed. Defining the goals of therapy (rapid response vs durable disease control), establishing the presence of targetable mutations, and considering the toxicities associated with each therapy can inform a treatment strategy. Incorporating both recent therapeutic modalities and older treatment options can provide the greatest potential for durable response. Overall, we recommend using immunotherapies (anti-CTLA4, anti-PD-1, combined anti-CTLA4/anti-PD-1, or interleukin-2) as the backbone of treatment for metastatic melanoma due to their potential for durable response. The targeted therapies and cytotoxic therapies can then be used intermittently to rescue patients from symptomatic disease progression. Of course, available clinical trials should always be considered, whenever possible.

2 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib treatment for patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage IIIC or metastatic melanoma and activating exon 15 BRAF mutations other than V600E. 2017

Hallmeyer, Sigrun / Gonzalez, Rene / Lawson, David H / Cranmer, Lee D / Linette, Gerald P / Puzanov, Igor / Taback, Bret / Cowey, C Lance / Ribas, Antoni / Daniels, Gregory A / Moore, Timothy / Gibney, Geoffrey T / Tawbi, Hussein / Whitman, Eric / Lee, Geraldine / Mun, Yong / Liu, Shiyao / Hamid, Omid. ·aDepartment of Internal Medicine, Advocate Medical Group - Oncology North, Park Ridge, Illinois bMelanoma Research Clinic, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado cDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia dDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, The University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona eDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri fDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee gDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York hDepartment of Medical Oncology, Texas Oncology, Dallas, Texas iDepartment of Medicine, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of California jDepartment of Immuno-Oncology, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles kDepartment of Oncology, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla lGenentech Inc., South San Francisco, California mMid Ohio Oncology and Hematology Inc., Columbus, Ohio nDepartment of Melanoma, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC oDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania pDepartment of Melanoma, Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health System, Morristown, New Jersey, USA. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #29076950.

ABSTRACT: BRAF mutations are found in ~50% of metastatic melanomas, most commonly in codon V600. Vemurafenib improves progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. The results of a descriptive study evaluating vemurafenib in patients with advanced melanoma harbouring BRAF mutations other than V600E are reported. Eligible patients with stage IIIC or IV melanoma and non-V600E BRAF mutations received vemurafenib (960 mg, twice daily). End points included investigator-assessed best overall response rate (primary), time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. Planned (V600K vs. non-V600K mutations) subgroup analyses were carried out. Thirty-one patients were enrolled; 13 (42%) had V600K mutations and 18 (58%) had other mutations. Investigator-assessed confirmed that the best overall response rate was 23% (95% confidence interval=10-41%) in the overall population, and was similar between patients with V600K mutations (23%; 95% confidence interval=5-54%) versus other mutations (22%; 95% confidence interval=6-48%). Responses were observed in patients with V600K (n=3), V600E2 (n=1), V600R (n=1), L597S (n=1) and D594G (n=1) mutations. No new safety signals were reported. Vemurafenib showed activity in patients with advanced melanoma with rarer BRAF mutations.

3 Clinical Trial Cutaneous head and neck melanoma in OPTiM, a randomized phase 3 trial of talimogene laherparepvec versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor for the treatment of unresected stage IIIB/IIIC/IV melanoma. 2016

Andtbacka, Robert H I / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Ollila, David W / Hallmeyer, Sigrun / Milhem, Mohammed / Amatruda, Thomas / Nemunaitis, John J / Harrington, Kevin J / Chen, Lisa / Shilkrut, Mark / Ross, Merrick / Kaufman, Howard L. ·University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah. · St. Luke's University Hospital and Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. · Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois. · University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa. · Minnesota Oncology, Fridley, Minnesota. · Mary Crowley Cancer Research Center, Dallas, Texas. · The Institute of Cancer Research/The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Amgen, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California. · The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, New Jersey. ·Head Neck · Pubmed #27407058.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Cutaneous head and neck melanoma has poor outcomes and limited treatment options. In OPTiM, a phase 3 study in patients with unresectable stage IIIB/IIIC/IV melanoma, intralesional administration of the oncolytic virus talimogene laherparepvec improved durable response rate (DRR; continuous response ≥6 months) compared with subcutaneous granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). METHODS: Retrospective review of OPTiM identified patients with cutaneous head and neck melanoma given talimogene laherparepvec (n = 61) or GM-CSF (n = 26). Outcomes were compared between talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF treated patients with cutaneous head and neck melanoma. RESULTS: DRR was higher for talimogene laherparepvec-treated patients than for GM-CSF treated patients (36.1% vs 3.8%; p = .001). A total of 29.5% of patients had a complete response with talimogene laherparepvec versus 0% with GM-CSF. Among talimogene laherparepvec-treated patients with a response, the probability of still being in response after 12 months was 73%. Median overall survival (OS) was 25.2 months for GM-CSF and had not been reached with talimogene laherparepvec. CONCLUSION: Treatment with talimogene laherparepvec was associated with improved response and survival compared with GM-CSF in patients with cutaneous head and neck melanoma. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: 1752-1758, 2016.

4 Clinical Trial A single-arm, open-label, expanded access study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma in the United States. 2014

Flaherty, Lawrence / Hamid, Omid / Linette, Gerald / Schuchter, Lynn / Hallmeyer, Sigrun / Gonzalez, Rene / Cowey, C Lance / Pavlick, Anna / Kudrik, Fred / Curti, Brendan / Lawson, David / Chapman, Paul B / Margolin, Kim / Ribas, Antoni / McDermott, David / Flaherty, Keith / Cranmer, Lee / Hodi, F Stephen / Day, Bann-Mo / Linke, Rolf / Hainsworth, John. ·From the *Karmanos Cancer Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; †The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA; ‡Washington University, St Louis, MO; §University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; ∥Oncology Specialists S.C., Park Ridge, IL; ¶University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO; #Baylor Sammons Cancer Center, Texas Oncology, PA, Dallas, TX; **NYU Medical Center, New York, NY; ††South Carolina Oncology Associates, Columbia, SC; ‡‡Providence Portland Medical Center, Portland, OR; §§Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; ∥∥Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; ¶¶Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; ##UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA; ***Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and †††Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; ‡‡‡University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; §§§Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; ∥∥∥Genentech, San Francisco, CA; ¶¶¶The SFJ Pharma Group, Pleasanton, CA; and ###Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN. ·Cancer J · Pubmed #24445759.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: This open-label, multicenter study was designed to allow access to vemurafenib for patients with metastatic melanoma, bridging the time between end of enrollment in the phase III registration trial (December 2010) and commercial availability following US Food and Drug Administration approval of vemurafenib for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma (August 2011). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF mutation (detected by the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test). Unlike previous vemurafenib trials, patients with poor performance status (PS) and treated brain metastases were permitted. Enrolled patients received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. RESULTS: Of 374 patients enrolled at 29 US sites (December 2010 to October 2011), 371 patients received vemurafenib and were followed up for a median of 2.8 months (the study had a prespecified end upon vemurafenib approval and commercial availability). At baseline, most patients (75%) had stage M1c disease, and 19% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 2 or 3; 72% of patients had received prior systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma, 27% received prior ipilimumab, and 29% radiotherapy for prior brain metastases. Because reassessment data to confirm response were not available for most patients, point estimates of objective response rate (ORR) are reported. Among 241 efficacy-evaluable patients, the ORR was 54% (median time to response, 1.9 months). The ORR in non-central nervous system sites in patients with previously treated brain metastases (n = 68) was 53%. The ORR in prior ipilimumab-treated patients (n = 68) was 52%. For patients with PS of 0 or 1 (n = 210) and 2 or 3 (n = 31), the ORRs were 55%, and 42%, respectively. The safety profile observed was consistent with that reported in previous studies. The number of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was higher in patients with PS 2 or 3 than in those with PS 0 or 1 (10% vs. 5%, respectively). Adverse events requiring a dose reduction (at least 1 level) occurred in 11% of patients, and 9 patients (2%) experienced events leading to vemurafenib withdrawal, including 2 with repeated QT interval prolongation. DISCUSSION: This study confirmed the established rapid and high tumor response rate achievable with vemurafenib in BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. Several groups not included in previous studies, including patients with previously treated brain metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 2 to 3, or previous ipilimumab treatment had benefitted from vemurafenib similar to the overall population. No new safety signals were detected.

5 Article Real-world treatment practice in patients with advanced melanoma in the era before ipilimumab: results from the IMAGE study. 2016

Middleton, Mark R / Dalle, Stéphane / Claveau, Joel / Mut, Pilar / Hallmeyer, Sigrun / Plantin, Patrice / Highley, Martin / Kotapati, Srividya / Le, Trong Kim / Brokaw, Jane / Abernethy, Amy P. ·National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. · Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Lyon, France. · Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Quebec City, Canada. · Hospital Son Llatzer, Illes Balears, Spain. · Oncology Specialists SC, Park Ridge, Illinois. · Hôpital Laënnec, Quimper, France. · Plymouth Oncology Centre, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, United Kingdom. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey. · Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. ·Cancer Med · Pubmed #27118102.

ABSTRACT: The therapeutic landscape for advanced melanoma has recently been transformed by several novel agents (immune checkpoint inhibitors and molecular-targeted agents). The prospective, multi-site, observational study IMAGE (ipilimumab: management of advanced melanoma in real practice) included a retrospective cohort to describe real-world treatment prior to approval of the immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab. This retrospective cohort of patients, who started second-line/subsequent treatment (index therapy) for advanced melanoma within 3 years before ipilimumab approval, was selected randomly by chart review. Collected data included treatment history, patient outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization. All patients had ≥1 year of follow-up data. This analysis included 177 patients from Europe (69%) and North America (31%). The most common index therapies (used alone or in combination) were fotemustine (23%), dacarbazine (21%), temozolomide (14%), and platinum-based chemotherapy (14%). Most patients (89%) discontinued index treatment during the study period; the most common reason was disease progression (59%). Among patients with tumor assessment (153/177; 86%), 2% had complete response, 5% had partial response, and 12% had stable disease on last tumor assessment. At 1-year study follow-up, median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-2.9) and median overall survival was 8.8 months (95% CI, 6.5-9.7). During follow-up, 95% of the patients had healthcare visits for advanced melanoma, 74% of whom were hospitalized or admitted to a hospice facility. These results provide insights into patient care with advanced melanoma in the era before ipilimumab and may serve as a benchmark for new agents in future real-world studies.