% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{DeTemple:302794,
author = {V. K. DeTemple and M. Kaatz and E. Stockfleth and C. Scheel
and Y. Angela and R. Gutzmer and U. Leiter and F. Meier and
D. Schadendorf$^*$ and E. Livingstone and C. Gebhardt and I.
von Wasielewski and M. Weichenthal and P. Mohr and J. Hassel
and C. Pföhler and J. C. Simon and F. Jochims and P.
Terheyden and J. Ulrich and S. Haferkamp and K. Drexler and
B. Schilling and V. Glutsch and L. Heinzerling and C.
Berking and S. Ugurel and D. Tomsitz},
title = {{R}eal-world experience with first- versus second-line
cemiplimab for advanced basal cell carcinoma.},
journal = {European journal of cancer},
volume = {225},
issn = {0959-8049},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {DKFZ-2025-01334},
pages = {115590},
year = {2025},
abstract = {The anti-PD1 antibody (PD1i) cemiplimab is approved as
second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic
basal cell carcinoma (BCC), resulting in an ORR of 20-30
$\%.$ This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of
cemiplimab as first-line or second-line treatment of BCC in
a German real-world patient cohort.Patients with
histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic BCC
who were treated with cemiplimab were retrospectively
identified from the prospective multicenter real-world skin
cancer registry ADOREG. Study endpoints were overall
response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and
overall survival (OS). Therapy outcome was compared between
patients receiving first-line cemiplimab and patients
treated with cemiplimab in second-line.37 patients from 17
skin cancer centers were identified who received cemiplimab.
The median follow-up after start of any first-line treatment
was 37.1 months, and 17.9 months after initiation of any
cemiplimab treatment. Patients who received first-line
cemiplimab (n = 8) had an ORR of 62.5 $\%,$ compared to an
ORR of 31.0 $\%$ for patients who received second-line
cemiplimab (n = 29); Median PFS was 19.8 months for
first-line cemiplimab and 5.3 months for second-line
cemiplimab. Reinduction with HHIs after progression on
second-line cemiplimab resulted in an ORR of 20.0 $\%$ and a
median PFS of 3.8 months.We demonstrate a comparable outcome
for cemiplimab as second-line treatment of BCC in our
real-world patient cohort as reported in previous
registration studies. Additionally, we found a trend for a
more favorable outcome in first-line therapy, suggesting a
rationale to further investigate cemiplimab as first-line
treatment of advanced BCC.},
keywords = {Basal cell carcinoma (Other) / Cemiplimab (Other) /
Hedgehog inhibitor (Other) / Immune checkpoint inhibitor
(Other) / Real world data (Other)},
cin = {ED01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)ED01-20160331},
pnm = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:40580809},
doi = {10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115590},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/302794},
}