Melanoma Market Feedback: Post-ASCO 2011

Continuing the tradition of providing you with timely market feedback from ASCO 2011, OBR and MDoutlook are pleased to share results from MDoutlook’s 4th Annual post-ASCO survey fielded among its global network of 52,000 cancer physicians.

The first Quick-Poll published in the OBR blog will cover one of the hottest topics at ASCO – melanoma. Following these results and analysis we’ll publish on the other tumor types listed below.


Quick Poll Methodology and Respondents’ Geographic Distribution

  • 2011 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting was held in Chicago, IL. June 3-7, 2011
  • Melanoma Quick Poll was launched by email on the morning of Friday, June 10, 2011
  • 4th in a series of 4 ASCO Quick Polls: Other Quick-Polls include Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), GU (prostate and renal) cancers, GI cancers, and Melanoma
  • Sent to global distribution of Medical Oncologists and clinicians with a clinical interest in Melanoma
  • Data taken on June 15th with 201 complete responses
  • ~1/2 of responses from USA
  • Responses received from 23 different countries in total
  • No financial incentives provided for participation

Survey Results:

1) Melanoma Treaters Plan to Treat a Majority of Their  V600E BRAF+ Melanoma Patients with Vemurafenib


  • US melanoma treaters have slightly higher anticipated usage of vemurafenib
  • A majority will place 81-100% of their stage III and stage IV melanoma patients on vemurafenib
  • Ex-US melanoma treaters more likely to place stage IV melanoma patients on vemurafenib than stage III unresectable melanoma patients
  • ~50% will place 81-100% of their stage IV melanoma patients as opposed to 33% for their stage III patients

2) Physicians Plan Selective Usage of Ipilimumab in Their Advanced and Metastatic Melanoma Patients with Ipilimumab


  • Largest proportion of US melanoma treaters will use ipilimumab for 41-60% of their unresectable stage III and stage IV melanoma patients
  • Largest proportion of Ex-US melanoma treaters will use ipilimumab for 21-40% of their unresectable stage III and stage IV melanoma patients
  • Less than 5% of Ex-US melanoma treaters will not use ipilimumab vs. ~10% of US melanoma treaters

3) Melanoma Treaters Rate Clinical Importance of Clinical Trial of GSK212 (MEK inhibitor) and GSK436 (BRAF) as Highly Important


  • Overall, melanoma treaters view clinical trial testing GSK212 and GSK436 in combination as very high
  • The majority of clinicians rate the clinical importance as high or very high
    • Less than 5% rated clinical importance as low

4) Majority of Melanoma Patients Will Be Screened for V600E BRAF Mutation in the Next Year


  • The majority of US and Ex-US melanoma patients will be screened for the V600E BRAF mutation in the upcoming year
    • ~80% of US patients and 65% of Ex-US patients
  • Less than 50% of patients were screened in the previous year
  • 98% increase in the US and 120% increase in Ex-US

Overall Conclusions

  • Melanoma treaters plan to use vemurafenib in over 50% of their V600E BRAF+ melanoma patients
  • Clinicians plan to use ipilimumab in ~50% of their advanced and metastatic melanoma patients
  • Very little difference in usage between unresectable stage III and stage IV melanoma patients
  • Respondents view the clinical trial testing GSK212 and GSK436 in combination as having very high in clinical importance
  • Melanoma treaters will double the number of patients screened for V600E BRAF mutation in the next year

Final Thoughts:

Quick polls are a fast way of measuring expected acceptance of clinical data post major medical meetings, and perhaps can be used to make some assumptions about adoption amongst providers.  In today’s information hungry environment, the speed at which these polls can be conducted and analyzed can be advantageous for market planning and “pressure testing” acceptance of data amongst key stakeholders.

Submitted by Stefan Terwindt, EVP, The Arcas Group

article register

Recent Posts

Recent Comments



  1. It’s difficult to assess the value of these results in the absence of data on the sample size. Though this survey was “fielded to 52,000 physicians”, the number of actual respondents is not reported. Can you please share this information?

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment