Comparison of the combination of 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea (BCNU) and vincristine with two dose schedules of 5-(3,3-dimethyl-1-triazino) imidazole 4-carboxamide (DTIC) in the treatment of disseminated malignant melanoma

WITHDRAWN: Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Systemic therapies for metastatic cutaneous melanoma, the most aggressive of all skin cancers, remain disappointing. Few lasting remissions are achieved and the therapeutic aim remains one of palliation.Many agents are used alone or in combination with varying degrees of toxicity and cost. It is unclear whether evidence exists to support these complex regimens over best supportive care / placebo.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits from the use of systemic therapies in metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to best supportive care/placebo, and to establish whether a 'standard' therapy exists which is superior to other treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

Randomised controlled trials were identified from the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CCTR/CENTRAL databases. References, conference proceedings, and Science Citation Index/Scisearch were also used to locate trials. Cancer registries and trialists were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults with histologically proven metastatic cutaneous melanoma in which systemic anti-cancer therapy was compared with placebo or supportive care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. Data extraction forms were used for studies which appeared to meet the selection criteria and, where appropriate, full text articles were retrieved and reviewed independently.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials were found comparing a systemic therapy with placebo or best supportive care in metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials to show superiority of systemic therapy over best supportive care / placebo in the treatment of malignant cutaneous melanoma.Given that patients with metastatic melanoma frequently receive systemic therapy, it is our pragmatic view that a future systematic review could compare any systemic treatment, or combination of treatments, to single agent dacarbazine.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.

[Malignant head and neck melanoma: Part 2: Therapy]

Resection margins of melanomas in the head and neck region often have to be adapted according anatomical circumstances. In the case of thicker primary tumors or after complete resection of locoregional lymph node metastases, adjuvant therapy with interferon-α can be performed; in some cases, adjuvant radiotherapy may also be indicated. In the case of inoperable lymph node or distant metastases, systemic treatment is required. Beside well-established mono- or polychemotherapy regimens, newer targeted therapies with BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib, dabrafenib), mitogenic-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors (trametinib, binimetinib, and cobimetinib), and kinase inhibitors (imatinib, sunitinib, nilotinib, dasatinib) are also available.

Immunotherapy in Melanoma: Recent Advances and Promising New Therapies

The incidence and mortality of melanoma are on the rise. Historically, patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma were faced with a grim prognosis, with survival rates of 15% at 5 years. Prior to 2011, no drug or therapeutic regimen had been shown to improve overall survival (OS) in metastatic melanoma. Chemotherapeutic agents, such as dacarbazine or temozolomide, are often given to patients for palliative purposes; high-dose interleukin 2 and biochemotherapy are immunotherapeutic options that could be offered to patients with a good performance status at specialized centers. Neither has been shown to impact OS, but durable complete responses are seen in a minority of patients. Since 2011, 4 new drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, all of which improve survival. Three of these agents (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib) are targeted therapies, with ipilimumab being the only new immunotherapy. With a focus on immunotherapeutic agents, this review seeks to summarize the treatment options currently available for metastatic melanoma and to examine those on the near horizon.

Treatments for metastatic melanoma: synthesis of evidence from randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Advanced melanomas (non-resectable Stage-III/IV) are fatal, with few effective treatments. It remains unclear if other drugs offer improvements over the standard, dacarbazine.

PURPOSE

We quantified objective response rates (Complete+Partial response) of dacarbazine versus comparators for advanced cutaneous melanoma.

METHODS

We retrieved all head-to-head randomized controlled trials involving dacarbazine and other drugs/combinations. Two reviewers searched MEDLINE (1966-Jan 2006), EMBASE (1980-2006), CINAHL (1982-2006) and Cochrane library, then compared results. Differences were resolved through consensus. Rates were combined using random effects meta-analysis. chi2 tested heterogeneity; points from Jadad's method were assessed to examine study quality.

RESULTS

We found 48 studies having 111 active treatment arms [24 with dacarbazine monotherapy (n=1390), 75 with dacarbazine combinations (n=4962), and 12 with non-dacarbazine treatments (n=783)] treating 7135 patients. Overall, study quality was poor. Response to dacarbazine monotherapy ranged between 5.3% and 28.0% (average 15.3%), OR=1.31, CI(95%): 1.06-1.61; N=3356. Partial responses comprised 73% of successes. Only adding interferons improved response rates (OR=1.69, CI(95%): 1.07-2.68, N=778) but survival duration was not significantly longer (P=0.32), and trials with larger sample sizes found lower success rates. All other treatments alone or in combination were ineffective P>0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Dacarbazine generally produces poor outcomes. Adding other therapies offers minimal clinical advantages (possibly with interferons). In general, study quality was poor and sample sizes were small. This meta-analysis highlights the unmet need for effective treatment options for advanced melanoma.

Randomized trial of dacarbazine versus bleomycin, vincristine, lomustine and dacarbazine (BOLD) chemotherapy combined with natural or recombinant interferon-?? in patients with advanced melanoma

This randomized phase II study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of dacarbazine (DTIC) and bleomycin, vincristine, lomustine and DTIC (BOLD) combined with natural interferon-alpha (nIFN-alpha) or recombinant interferon-alpha2b (rIFN-alpha2b) in patients with advanced melanoma. The treatment arms were: A, DTIC plus nIFN-alpha; B, BOLD plus nIFN-alpha; C, DTIC plus rIFN-alpha2b; D, BOLD plus rIFN-alpha2b. One hundred and eight patients were randomized, of whom 106 were eligible to be analysed for efficacy. Overall, 56% of patients had abdominal visceral and/or bone involvement. The response rates were 8% (2/25) in arm A, 13% (4/31) in arm B, 12% (3/25) in arm C and 24% (6/25) in arm D. The differences were not statistically significant by the usual chi-squared test. However, when analysed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test, the one-sided P values were close to significant (0.085 and 0.033). All of the eight complete responses occurred in patients with soft tissue and/or lung metastases and the BOLD regimens produced six of them. There were no significant differences in survival (arm A, 11.1 months; arm B, 9.8 months; arm C, 9.1 months; arm D, 7.5 months; P=0.62). BOLD was more toxic than DTIC. With the present sample size, there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy between the arms, but there was a trend towards a higher response rate with BOLD plus rIFN-alpha2b. Patients with soft tissue or lung metastases may achieve more complete responses with BOLD regimens.

Palliative therapy of disseminated malignant melanoma: a systematic review of 41 randomised clinical trials

We undertook a systematic review of 41 randomised studies in disseminated melanoma, identified by a comprehensive search. We aimed to investigate rates of response to various treatment modalities and the outcome for the patients. We analysed seven studies that compared polychemotherapy with single-agent dacarbazine, six that compared different chemotherapeutic schedules with each other, five on the addition of tamoxifen to a reference therapy, and six that included non-specific immunostimulators. In 17 studies, the addition of interferon alfa, interleukin 2, or both, to a reference therapy was investigated, including trials with biochemotherapy. Many trials had small sample sizes and did not report a power analysis; not all were analysed by intention to treat. Although some treatment regimens, especially polychemotherapeutic schedules, seem to increase response rates, none of the treatment schedules was proven to prolong overall survival. Patients with disseminated melanoma should be treated with well-tolerated drug regimens, such as single-agent treatments or in combination with interferon alfa. Systemic treatments should preferably be investigated in randomised trials so that the potential benefits of new treatment concepts can be thoroughly examined.

Single-agent DTIC versus combination chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma: a meta-analysis of 3273 patients from 20 randomized trials

It is currently unclear whether any combination therapy for the treatment of metastatic melanoma is superior to standard single-agent dacarbazine (DTIC) in terms of tumour response and overall survival. The available randomized clinical trial data were combined in a meta-analysis to address this question. Initially a thorough MEDLARS search was conducted covering the time period from January 1970 to January 1999. This literature search was supplemented by manual searches of study bibliographies (including review articles) and review of relevant textbooks. The meta-analysis was performed according to a prospective protocol using strict study eligibility criteria. Data derived from randomized controlled trials comparing single-agent DTIC with combination chemo/immunotherapy were combined using a fixed effects model. Data were stratified into three combination therapy groups: DTIC-containing regimens, non-DTIC-containing therapy, and chemotherapy plus immunotherapy. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients demonstrating a complete or partial response to treatment. A total of 20 randomized trials comprising 3273 patients were initially combined in a meta-analysis. This yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.48), demonstrating that combination drug therapies are associated with a 23% increase in response rate compared with single-agent DTIC. The combination of DTIC plus interferon-alpha produced a tumour response rate 53% greater (95% CI 1.10-2.13) than that seen with DTIC alone. This increase was greater than that seen with DTIC-containing multi-drug regimens, which had an OR of 1.33 (95% CI 0.99-1.78). No difference in overall survival was demonstrated. Non-DTIC-containing treatment programmes showed no advantage over DTIC in terms of tumour response rate (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.45-1.32). The combination of DTIC and interferon-alpha appears more active than standard single-agent DTIC in metastatic melanoma. Further randomized clinical trials employing a DTIC plus interferon arm are necessary to confirm these results.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Systemic therapies for metastatic cutaneous melanoma, the most aggressive of all skin cancers, remain disappointing. Few lasting remissions are achieved and the therapeutic aim remains one of palliation. Many agents are used alone or in combination with varying degrees of toxicity and cost. It is unclear whether evidence exists to support these complex regimens over best supportive care / placebo.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits from the use of systemic therapies in metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to best supportive care/placebo, and to establish whether a 'standard' therapy exists which is superior to other treatments.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials were identified from the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CCTR/CENTRAL databases. References, conference proceedings, and Science Citation Index/Scisearch were also used to locate trials. Cancer registries and trialists were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults with histologically proven metastatic cutaneous melanoma in which systemic anti-cancer therapy was compared with placebo or supportive care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. Data extraction forms were used for studies which appeared to meet the selection criteria and, where appropriate, full text articles were retrieved and reviewed independently.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials were found comparing a systemic therapy with placebo or best supportive care in metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials to show superiority of systemic therapy over best supportive care / placebo in the treatment of malignant cutaneous melanoma. Given that patients with metastatic melanoma frequently receive systemic therapy, it is our pragmatic view that a future systematic review could compare any systemic treatment, or combination of treatments, to single agent dacarbazine.

Experience with interferon alpha 2b combined with dacarbazine in the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma

A prospectively randomized trial was undertaken to compare dacarbazine (DTIC) alone with DTIC plus interferon in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma. Of the 73 patients who entered on the study, 36 were randomized to receive DTIC alone and 37 were randomized to receive the combination DTIC plus interferon. The two sections were well balanced. There was more toxicity on the combination section, but no life threatening toxicity. The overall response rate for patients on DTIC was 20% (two complete and five partial responses) (95% CI 7-39%) and for patients on DTIC plus interferon was 50% (13 complete and four partial responses) (95% CI 26-72%) (p = 0.007). The median time to treatment failure, was significantly more in favour of the combination treatment (9 versus 2.5 months; p < 0.01, Mantel-Cox). The median survival of 16.7 versus 8 months was in favor of the combination treatment (p < 0.01). The reasons for the improved results with the combination treatment are discussed. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group is currently, based on the results of this study, investigating the role of interferon combinations in metastatic malignant melanoma.

A phase II trial of high-dose cisplatin and dacarbazine. Lack of efficacy of high-dose, cisplatin-based therapy for metastatic melanoma

Cisplatin and dacarbazine are used widely in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. To evaluate high-dose cisplatin and dacarbazine, 32 patients with metastatic melanoma were treated with cisplatin 50 mg/m2 and dacarbazine 350 mg/m2 daily for three days repeated at 28-day intervals. Their median age was 43.5 years (range, 25 to 73 years), and their median Karnofsky performance status was 80% (range, 70% to 100%). Measurable and evaluable disease sites (number of patients) included lymph nodes (22), lung (17), soft tissue (16), liver (13), bone (seven), spleen (four), adrenal gland (three), skin (three), and other sites (five). Patients received a median of two cycles of therapy (range, one to eight cycles). Thirty patients were evaluable for response. No complete responses were observed. Five patients had a partial response (17%; 95% confidence interval, 3% to 30%) for 16+, 12+, 7, 6.5, and 3 months. Responding sites of disease included lymph nodes (five of 22), lung (three of 17), and soft tissue (two of 16). Hematologic toxicity (Grade greater than or equal to 3) included neutropenia (16 of 32 patients, 30 of 90 cycles), thrombocytopenia (eight of 32 patients, 12 of 90 cycles), and anemia (five patients). Nine episodes of neutropenia and fever were seen in four patients; two had bacteremia. Nonhematologic toxicity (Grade greater than or equal to 3) included hypotension (two patients), nausea and vomiting (four), neuropathy (two), ototoxicity (four), and hypomagnesemia (nine). The low objective response rate and severe toxicity of this regimen preclude its standard use in patients with metastatic melanoma. A review of cisplatin-based therapy in metastatic melanoma suggests that there is no dose-response relationship. The use of high-dose cisplatin (greater than 100 mg/m2) in the treatment of metastatic melanoma is not recommended.

Combination of cisplatin, vindesine, and dacarbazine in advanced malignant melanoma. A Phase II Study of the EORTC Malignant Melanoma Cooperative Group

A Phase II study combining cisplatin, vindesine, and dacarbazine was performed on patients with disseminated malignant melanoma by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Malignant Melanoma Cooperative Group (MMCG). The treatment consisted of intravenous administrations of dacarbazine 450 mg/m2, vindesine 3 mg/m2, and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on day 1 and 8 of each course. Courses were repeated every 4 weeks. Treatment was discontinued in case of progression after two courses, otherwise continued until progression or for a minimum of six courses. One hundred five patients entered the trial with 92 patients being evaluable. The response rate calculated after clearance by the Extramural Review Committee shows four complete and 18 partial responses, i.e., 24%, with a median remission duration of 23 weeks. Toxicity and subjective tolerance to this regimen were moderate, requiring 140 modifications of 642 administrations (22%). Main toxicities were nausea and vomiting (95%), leucopenia (70%), alopecia (56%), peripheral neuropathy (32%), and nephrotoxicity (17%). The discussion emphasizes some particular points of interest in the management of advanced malignant melanoma.

Dacarbazine-induced photosensitivity reaction

Dacarbazine (DTIC-Dome) is a widely used chemotherapeutic agent employed in the therapy of malignant melanoma. In this communication, we present two patients who developed photosensitivity skin reactions immediately after its administration. Physicians using dacarbazine should be aware of this side effect and should instruct patients to avoid solar exposure following infusions of this drug.

Treatment of malignant melanoma with dacarbazin (DTIC-DOME) with special reference to urinary excretion of 5-S-cysteinyldopa

Seventeen patients were given DTIC, 200 mg/m2/day in five-day courses every four to six weeks. In four patients (stage II) treated on an adjuvant basis, tumor recurrence has been verified in three. Four of the palliatively treated patients were also given DTIC by regional intra-arterial infusion with minimal positive tumor effect and minimal toxicity. 5-S-cysteinyldopa excretion in urine was checked continuously in all patients. Tumor recurrence was revealed in two patients given DTIC on an adjuvant basis three and four months before clinical signs of tumor. In the palliatively treated patients, 5-S-cysteinyldopa excretion increased in 5/6 patients judged to have stable disease, before tumor progression was clinically detectable. The use of 5-S-cysteinyldopa examination is a valuable adjunct to the follow-up of the effect of DTIC therapy in melanoma patients.

Effect of cobalt-60 gamma rays and DTIC (5-(3,3 dimethyl-1-triazeno)-imidazole-r-carboxamide) on human malignant melanomas grown in athymic nude mice

The effects of 60Co gamma rays and DTIC on two human malignant melanomas, inoculated and passed serially in athymic mutant nude mice, were studied in vivo. Dose-response curves determined after single exposures to 60Co gamma radiation indicate that human malignant melanomas remain radioresistant after transplantation in mutant nude mice. A fractionated irradiation régime, used in the treatment of patients suffering from malignant melanomas, had a considerable effect but did not cure. A corresponding treatment régime with DTIC inhibited the tumour growth, but less effectively than 60Co gamma rays. These two treatments combined were more effective than either alone. The results obtained show no disagreement with results from clinical practice regarding treatment of disseminated malignant melanomas. This suggests that human malignant tissue, transplanted to mutant nude mice, retains its properties with respect to response to therapy. The mutant nude mouse may therefore be valuable in developing new treatment régimes for cancer.

Combination chemotherapy with bis chloroethyl nitrosourea (BCNU), vincristine and dimethyl triazeno imidazole carboxamide (DTIC) in disseminated malignant melanoma

One hundred thirty two patients with disseminated malignant melanoma were treated using a combination of BCNU, vincristine and imidazole carboxamide. A response rate of 23% was observed, while 16% had stable disease. The patients' median survival was 42 months from diagnosis and 5.3 months from the onset of treatment. These results are not significantly different from therapy with imidazole carboxamide alone. Patients on this study were observed to have a significant reduction in the number of lymphocytes in their peripheral blood (mean 1800/mm3, median 1550/mm3). Patients with lymphopenia prior to the onset of therapy (86%) had a similar response rate but a shorter median survival (4.4 months vs. 7.8 months, P = .03) than patients with normal lymphocyte levels. These findings are compatible with recent observations on the importance of host immunocompetence in patients with malignant melanoma. Eosinophil levels were not closely correlated with response, although among patients with eosinophil counts of greater than 300/mm3 (22%), a slightly higher response rate (29%) was observed (P = .13). Eosinophilia did not influence patient survival.

Bis chloroethyl nitrosourea, vincristine, dimethyl triazeno imidazole carboxamide and chlorpromazine combination chemotherapy in disseminated malignant melanoma

One hundred twenty-one patients with disseminated malignant melanoma were treated with BCNU, vincristine, DTIC, and chlorpromazine (BVD). A response rate of 22% was observed; 28% of the patients had stable disease and 50% had increasing disease. Similar response rates were obtained with both the high dose and low dose treatment schedules. Patients who exhibited some degree of improvement during their initial course of treatment had the highest overall response rate (72%) to BVD chemotherapy. The median survival from onset of therapy was six months for all patients and 18 months for patients who responded to chemotherapy. The median duration of response was 9.9 months. Thus, the addition of chlorpromazine to BVD chemotherapy did not increase tumor response, and the overall results obtained were comparable to DTIC alone. Patients were found to be lymphopenic prior to the onset of therapy. Their median absolute lymphocyte count was 1800/mm3. Those patients with absolute lymphocyte counts above the 2710/mm3 normal mean had significantly higher response rates (35% vs. 19%, P less than .05) and longer survivals (9.8 months vs. 4.3 months, P less than .05) than patients with lower initial lymphocyte levels. Pretreatment eosinophil and monocyte counts were not closely correlated with patient response or survival.

Combination chemotherapy of malignant melanoma with imidazole carboxamide, BCNU and vincristine

Forty patients with disseminated malignant melanoma were treated with triple combination chemotherapy consisting of Imidazole Carboxamide, BCNU and Vincristine. Seventeen of 40 patients (42.5%) showed significant responses including three complete responses. Responses were seen in cutaneous, lymph node and pulmonary metastases. Nine instances of hepatic metastases were unaffected by therapy but 68% of the skin and nodal patients responded. The median response duration was only 4 months and the median survival of responders was 9.5 months compared to a 2 month median survival of non-responders. Half of the responders died of CNS metastases. The short duration of response, the resistance of hepatic metastasis and the high incidence of cerebral recurrence necessitate additional therapeutic approaches to this disease.