This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
PURPOSE: Melanoma brain metastases (MBM) are common in advanced melanoma and linked to poor prognosis. Preventing MBM can improve survival and reduce morbidity. Although dual-agent immunotherapy (dIT) improves survival, its role in MBM prevention is unclear. We compared MBM incidence, overall survival (OS), and brain metastasis-free survival (BMFS) between dIT and single-agent immunotherapies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A real-world multi-institutional database identified patients with melanoma without MBM at immunotherapy initiation. Patients were stratified by anti-CTLA4, anti-PD1, and combination anti-CTLA4/anti-PD1 (dIT) treatment. MBM incidences were measured within 5 years after immunotherapy initiation and compared with risk ratios (RR). In a complementary single-institution cohort, the median OS and BMFS were compared between dIT, anti-CTLA4, and anti-PD1 via log-rank tests and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: TriNetX identified 8,287 patients receiving anti-CTLA (3,205), anti-PD1 (3,218), and dIT (1,864). MBM incidence was significantly lower in dIT (8.6%) and anti-PD1 (7.8%) versus anti-CTLA4 (12.2%) cohorts, with RR = 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-0.86] and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.57-0.70), respectively. There was no significant difference in MBM incidence between anti-PD1 (7.8%) and dIT (8.6%; RR = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.93-1.36). In the single-institution analysis (n = 119), 2-year OS probabilities were 90%, 80%, and 95%, and 2-year BMFS probabilities were 72.7%, 80%, and 95.7%, in the dIT, anti-CTLA4, and anti-PD1 cohorts, respectively. DIT and anti-PD1 showed improved early-phase protection against MBM development. The number of metastatic sites was significantly associated with MBM development (HR = 2.36; 95% CI, 1.22-4.58; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight dIT's potential role in primary prophylaxis against MBM, with anti-PD1 as the likely workhorse agent. Prospective studies are warranted.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhanja et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: