Real-world experience with first- versus second-line cemiplimab for advanced basal cell carcinoma.

DeTemple VK, Kaatz M, Stockfleth E, Scheel C, Angela Y, Gutzmer R, Leiter U, Meier F, Schadendorf D, Livingstone E, Gebhardt C, von Wasielewski I, Weichenthal M, Mohr P, Hassel J, Pföhler C, Simon JC, Jochims F, Terheyden P, Ulrich J, Haferkamp S, Drexler K, Schilling B, Glutsch V, Heinzerling L, Berking C, Ugurel S, Tomsitz D (2025)

Publication Language: English

Publication Type: Journal article

Publication year: 2025

Journal

Book Volume: 225

Article Number: 115590

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115590

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Authors with CRIS profile

Involved external institutions

Klinikum der Universität München (LMU Klinikum) Germany (DE) Johannes Wesling Klinikum Minden Germany (DE) SRH Wald-Klinikum Gera Germany (DE) Katholisches Klinikum Bochum (St. Josef- und St. Elisabeth-Hospital gGmbH) Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Tübingen Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Essen Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) Germany (DE) Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH) / Hannover Medical School Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH) Germany (DE) Elbe Kliniken Stade-Buxtehude Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes (UKS) Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Leipzig Germany (DE) Harzklinikum Dorothea Christiane Erxleben Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Regensburg Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt am Main (KGU) Germany (DE) Universitätsklinikum Würzburg Germany (DE)

How to cite

APA:

DeTemple, V.K., Kaatz, M., Stockfleth, E., Scheel, C., Angela, Y., Gutzmer, R.,... Tomsitz, D. (2025). Real-world experience with first- versus second-line cemiplimab for advanced basal cell carcinoma. European Journal of Cancer, 225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115590

MLA:

DeTemple, Viola K., et al. "Real-world experience with first- versus second-line cemiplimab for advanced basal cell carcinoma." European Journal of Cancer 225 (2025).

BibTeX: Download