Health-related quality of life in patients with high-risk melanoma randomised in the Nordic phase 3 trial with adjuvant intermediate-dose interferon alfa-2b

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials.

UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures for advanced skin cancer patients

Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to study quality of life (QOL) in the skin cancer population. Advanced melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) may be associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and treatment side effects; however, it is unclear which PROM is valid and appropriate to use in these populations for both clinical and research purposes. We aimed to identify the PROMs that have been used to measure QOL in advanced skin cancer patients and determine which of these PROMs have been validated to assess QOL outcomes in this population. A PubMed and EMBASE search was conducted from its inception to March 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines with a comprehensive list of search terms under three main topics: (1) PROM; (2) advanced skin cancer; and (3) staging and interventions. We included articles utilizing a PROM measuring QOL and having a patient population with advanced skin cancer defined as melanoma stage > T1a or non-melanoma AJCC stage T3 or greater. Advanced skin cancer patients were also defined as those with metastasis or requiring adjuvant therapy (systemic chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy). Studies were excluded according to the following criteria: mix of low-risk and advanced skin cancer patients in the study population without stratification into low-risk and advanced groups, stage T1a melanoma or mix of stages without stratification, low-risk NMSC, no PROM (i.e., study specific questionnaires), non-English publication, review article or protocol paper, conference abstract, or populations including non-skin cancers. A total of 1,998 articles were identified. 82 met our inclusion criteria resulting in 22 PROMs: five generic health-related (QWB-SA, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D, SF-36, and PRISM), six general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-C36, LASA, IOC, Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, and FACT-G), nine disease-focused or specialized (EORTC QLQ-H&N35, EORTC QLQ-MEL38, EORTC QLQ-BR23, Facial Disability Index, FACT-H&N, FACT-BRM, FACT-B, FACT-M, and scqolit), and two general dermatology (Skindex-16 and DLQI) PROMs. All PROMs have been generally validated except for EORTC QLQ-MEL38. Only two PROMs have been validated in the advanced melanoma population: FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C36. No PROMS have been validated in the advanced NMSC population. The PROMs that were validated in the advanced melanoma population do not include QOL issues unique to advanced skin tumors such as odor, bleeding, itching, wound care burden, and public embarrassment. Breast cancer and head and neck cancer instruments were adapted but not validated for use in the advanced skin cancer population due to the lack of an adequate instrument for this population. This study highlights the need for PROM instrument validation or creation specifically geared toward the advanced skin cancer population. Future studies should aim to develop and validate a PROM to assess QOL in this population.

Quality of Life in the First Year of Follow-Up in a Randomized Multicenter Trial Assessing the Role of Imaging after Radical Surgery of Stage IIB-C and III Cutaneous Melanoma (TRIM Study)

The benefit of imaging in the follow-up setting for high-risk melanoma patients is uncertain, and even less is known about the impact of intensive follow-up on the patient´s quality of life. In 2017, a Swedish prospective randomized multicenter study started, in which high-risk melanoma patients are randomly assigned 1:1 to follow-up by physical examinations +/- whole-body imaging. The first-year examinations are scheduled at 0, 6 and 12 months. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the patients´ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and levels of anxiety and depression were affected at 1 year by imaging. Anxiety/depression and HRQoL were assessed at 0 and 12 months by the questionnaires Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale and EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3. Expected baseline QLQ-C30 values for the patients were calculated using data from the general population. In total, 204 patients were analyzed. Mean differences in subscale scores at 1 year were not statistically significant either for HRQoL or for anxiety/depression. Baseline HRQoL did not differ from expected values in the general Swedish population. In conclusion, the patients in general coped well with the situation, and adding whole-body imaging to physical examinations did not affect the melanoma patients' HRQoL or levels of anxiety or depression.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

A systematic review, one meta-analysis, and 34 additional randomized trials were identified. The published studies included a wide range of systemic therapies in cutaneous and noncutaneous melanoma.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the adjuvant setting, nivolumab or pembrolizumab should be offered to patients with resected stage IIIA/B/C/D BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while either of those two agents or the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. No recommendation could be made for or against the use of neoadjuvant therapy in cutaneous melanoma. In the unresectable/metastatic setting, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, nivolumab alone, or pembrolizumab alone should be offered to patients with BRAF wild-type cutaneous melanoma, while those three regimens or combination BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy with dabrafenib/trametinib, encorafenib/binimetinib, or vemurafenib/cobimetinib should be offered in BRAF-mutant disease. Patients with mucosal melanoma may be offered the same therapies recommended for cutaneous melanoma. No recommendation could be made for or against specific therapy for uveal melanoma. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Clinicopathological Features, Staging, and Current Approaches to Treatment in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma

The incidence of melanoma in the United States has been increasing over the past several decades. Prognosis largely depends on disease stage, with 5-year melanoma-specific survival ranging from as high as 99% in patients with stage I disease to less than 10% for some patients with stage IV (distant metastatic) disease. Fortunately, in the last 5-10 years, there have been remarkable treatment advances for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma, including approval of targeted and immune checkpoint blockade therapies. In addition, results of recent clinical trials have confirmed the importance of sentinel lymph node biopsy and continue to refine the approach to regional lymph node basin management. Lastly, the melanoma staging system was revised in the eighth edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, which was implemented on January 1, 2018. Here we discuss these changes and the clinicopathological features that confer high risk for locoregional and distant disease relapse and poor survival. Implications regarding the management of melanoma in the metastatic and adjuvant settings are discussed, as are future directions for neoadjuvant therapies.

Systemic adjuvant therapy for adult patients at high risk for recurrent melanoma: A systematic review

Cutaneous melanoma is typically treated with wide local excision and, when appropriate, a sentinel node biopsy. Many patients are cured with this approach but for patients who have cancers with high risk features there is a significant risk of local and distant relapse and death. Interferon-based adjuvant therapy was recommended in the past but had modest results with significant toxicity. Recently, new therapies (immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) have been found to be effective in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma and many of these therapies have been evaluated and found to be effective in the adjuvant treatment of high risk patients with melanoma. This systematic review of adjuvant therapies for cutaneous and mucosal melanoma was conducted for Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) as the basis of a clinical practice guideline to address the question of whether patients with completely resected melanoma should be considered for adjuvant systemic therapy and which adjuvant therapy should be used.

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC) present a review of the literature and position statement on health-related (HR) QoL assessment in skin cancer patients. A literature search was carried out to identify publications since 1980 that included information about the impact of SC on QoL. Generic, dermatology-specific, cancer-specific, SC-specific, facial SC-specific, NMSC-specific, basal cell carcinoma-specific and melanoma-specific QoL questionnaires have been used to assess HRQoL in SC patients. HRQoL was assessed in the context of creation and validation of the HRQoL instruments, clinical trials, comparison of QoL in SC and other cancers, other diseases or controls, HRQoL assessment after treatment, comorbidities, behaviour modification, predictors of QoL and survival, supportive care needs, coping strategies and fear of cancer recurrence. The most widely used instruments for HRQoL assessment in SC patients are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Short Form 36 Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The TFs recommend the use of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30, especially in late stages of disease, and the melanoma-specific FACT-M and SC-specific SCI questionnaires. These instruments have been well validated and used in several studies. Other HRQoL instruments, also with good basic validation, are not currently recommended because the experience of their use is too limited. Dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments can be used to assess the impact of skin-related problems in SC. The TFs encourage further studies to validate HRQoL instruments for use in different stages of SC, in order to allow more detailed practical recommendations on HRQoL assessment in SC.

Health-related quality of life with adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): secondary outcomes of a multinational, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The EORTC 18071 phase 3 trial compared adjuvant ipilimumab with placebo in patients with stage III melanoma. The primary endpoint, recurrence-free survival, was significantly longer in the ipilimumab group than in the placebo group. Investigator-reported toxic effects of ipilimumab consisted mainly of skin, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and hepatic immune-related adverse events. Adjuvant treatment with ipilimumab in this setting was approved in October, 2014, by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the results of the primary outcome of this trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), of this trial.

METHODS

EORTC 18071 was a multinational, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) in 19 countries worldwide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by an interactive voice response system, to receive either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geographical region. HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality-of-life instrument at baseline, weeks 4, 7, 10, and 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter up to 2 years, irrespective of disease progression. Results were summarised by timepoint and in a longitudinal manner in the intention-to-treat population. Two summary scores were calculated for each HRQoL scale: the average score reported during induction (ipilimumab or placebo at a dose of 10 mg/kg, administered as one single dose at the start of days 1, 22, 43, and 64-ie, four doses in 3 weeks), and the average score reported after induction. A predefined threshold of a 10 point difference between arms was considered clinically relevant. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the global health scale, with the predefined hypothesis of no clinically relevant differences after induction between groups. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2007-001974-10, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00636168.

FINDINGS

Between July 10, 2008, and Aug 1, 2011, 951 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 475 in the ipilimumab group and 476 in the placebo group. Compliance with completing the HRQoL questionnaire was 893 (94%) of 951 patients at baseline, 693 (75%) of 924 at week 24, and 354 (51%) of 697 at week 108. Patient mean global health scores during (77·32 [SD 17·36] vs 72·96 [17·82]; p=0·00011) and after induction (76·48 [17·52] vs 72·32 [18·60]; p=0·00067) were statistically significantly different between groups but were not clinically relevant. Mean global health scores differed most between the groups at week 7 (77 [SD 19] in the placebo group vs 72 [22] in the ipilimumab group) and week 10 (77 [20] vs 70 [23]). Mean HRQoL scores differed by more than 10 points at week 10 between treatment groups for diarrhoea (7·67 [SD 17·05] for placebo vs 18·17 [28·35] for ipilimumab) and insomnia (15·17 [22·53] vs 25·60 [29·19]).

INTERPRETATION

Despite increased toxicity, which led to treatment discontinuation for most patients during the induction phase of ipilimumab administration, overall HRQoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, was similar between groups, as no clinically relevant differences (10 points or more) in global health status scores were observed during or after induction. Clinically relevant deterioration for some symptoms was observed at week 10, but after induction, no clinically relevant differences remained. Together with the primary analysis, results from this trial show that treatment with ipilimumab results in longer recurrence-free survival compared with that for treatment with placebo, with little impairment in HRQoL despite grade 3-4 investigator-reported adverse events.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Preferences of German melanoma patients for interferon (IFN) α-2b toxicities (the DeCOG "GERMELATOX survey") versus melanoma recurrence to quantify patients' relative values for adjuvant therapy

Currently interferon alfa-2b (IFNα-2b) is an approved adjuvant drug for high-risk melanoma patients that leads to an improvement in disease-free survival (DFS). However, it is unclear whether it also impacts overall survival. Widespread use of adjuvant high-dose IFNα has been tempered by its significant toxicity and its limited efficacy. Current therapeutic strategies like immune checkpoint blockade or targeted therapy may also be useful in the adjuvant setting. Therefore, it is important to weigh the trade-offs between possible side effects and therapeutic benefit.We assessed patient utilities for health states associated with IFN therapy. Utilities are measures of preference for a specific health state on a scale of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health).Utilities were determined for health states associated with adjuvant IFN among 130 German low-risk melanoma patients using the standard gamble technique. Four IFNα-2b toxicity scenarios and the following 3 posttreatment outcomes were assessed: disease-free health and melanoma recurrence (with or without previous use of IFNα-2b) resulting in cancer death. Patients were asked to trade-off the improvement in 5-year DFS and the IFN-related side effects.Utilities for melanoma recurrence (mean 0.60) were significantly lower than for all IFNα-2b toxicity scenarios (mean 0.81-0.90). Patients were willing to tolerate mild-to-moderate and severe toxicity for a 50% and 75% chance of 5-year DFS, respectively. Both utilities and threshold benefits were mostly independent from patient characteristics like gender, income, and social situation. Significant impact was only observed by age and previous personal experience with cancer.On average, German patients were willing to trade even severe IFNα-2b toxicity for reducing the rate of melanoma recurrence. This result points out the importance of a relapse-free survival for melanoma patients. The utilities measured in our study can be applied to decision-making processes in clinical trials of new adjuvant drugs.

(Neo)adjuvant systemic therapy for melanoma

Surgery still is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with stage II and III melanoma, but despite great efforts to gain or preserve locoregional control with excision of the primary tumour, satellites, intransits, sentinel node biopsy and lymphadenectomy, surgery alone does not seem to improve survival any further. Prognosis for patients with high risk melanoma remains poor with 5-year survival rates of 40 to 80%. Only interferon-2b has been approved as adjuvant therapy since 1995, but clinical integration is low considering the high risk-benefit ratio. In recent years systemic targeted- and immunotherapy have proven to be beneficial in advanced melanoma and could be a promising strategy for (neo)adjuvant treatment of patients with resectable high risk melanomas as well. Randomised, placebo- controlled phase III trials on adjuvant systemic targeted- and immunotherapy are currently being performed using new agents like ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, vemurafenib and dabrafenib plus trametinib. In this article we review the literature on currently known adjuvant therapies and currently ongoing trials of (neo)adjuvant therapies in high risk melanomas.

Treatment patterns of adjuvant interferon-α2b for high-risk melanoma: a retrospective study of the Grupo Español Multidisciplinar de Melanoma - Prima study

Adjuvant interferon-α2b (IFN-α2b) has been studied extensively in clinical trials, but there have been few studies of real-world use. The aim of this study is to describe the IFN-α2b real-world patterns in patients with high-risk melanoma in Spain. This was a retrospective and multicentre chart review study of an unselected cohort of patients with melanoma at high risk for relapse (stage IIB/IIC/III) treated with IFN-α2b. Patterns were assessed in terms of dose and compliance to planned treatment. A survival analysis was carried out for the full population and according to Kirkwood scheme compliance and the presence of ulceration. Of 327 patients treated with IFN-α2b, 318 received a high-dose regimen following the standard Kirkwood scheme; thus, patterns are described for this regimen. A total of 121 (38%) and 88 (28%) patients had at least one dose reduction during the induction and maintenance phases, respectively. Dose delay was required in fewer than 10% of patients. A total of 78, 40 and 38% of the patients completed the induction phase, maintenance phase and completed treatment, respectively. The median progression-free and overall survival for the full population were 3.2 and 10.5 years, respectively. There were no differences in progression-free survival and overall survival according to Kirkwood scheme compliance and the presence of ulceration. The most frequent adverse events were neutropenia (31%) and fatigue (30%). High-dose IFN-α2b is the most frequently used regimen in Spain as an adjuvant systemic treatment for high-risk melanoma. Despite poor compliance, in this retrospective study, IFN-α2b treatment provided a benefit consistent with that described previously.

Melanoma

Melanoma is a common cancer in the Western world with an increasing incidence. Sun exposure is still considered to be the major risk factor for melanoma. The prognosis of patients with malignant (advanced-stage) melanoma differs widely between countries, but public campaigns advocating early detection have led to significant reductions in mortality rates. As well as sun exposure, distinct genetic alterations have been identified as associated with melanoma. For example, families with melanoma who have germline mutations in CDKN2A are well known, whereas the vast majority of sporadic melanomas have mutations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade, which is the pathway with the highest oncogenic and therapeutic relevance for this disease. BRAF and NRAS mutations are typically found in cutaneous melanomas, whereas KIT mutations are predominantly observed in mucosal and acral melanomas. GNAQ and GNA11 mutations prevail in uveal melanomas. Additionally, the PI3K-AKT-PTEN pathway and the immune checkpoint pathways are important. The finding that programmed cell death protein 1 ligand 1 (PDL1) and PDL2 are expressed by melanoma cells, T cells, B cells and natural killer cells led to the recent development of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1)-specific antibodies (for example, nivolumab and pembrolizumab). Alongside other new drugs - namely, BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) and MEK inhibitors (trametinib and cobimetinib) - these agents are very promising and have been shown to significantly improve prognosis for patients with advanced-stage metastatic disease. Early signs are apparent that these new treatment modalities are also improving long-term clinical benefit and the quality of life of patients. This Primer summarizes the current understanding of melanoma, from mechanistic insights to clinical progress. For an illustrated summary of this Primer, visit: http://go.nature.com/vX2N9s.

Health-related quality of life impact in a randomised phase III study of the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600 metastatic melanoma

AIM

To present the impact of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the double-blind, randomised phase III COMBI-d study that investigated the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-d showed significantly prolonged progression-free survival for the combination.

METHODS

HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, a generic cancer questionnaire (completed at baseline, during study treatment, at progression and post progression) assessing various dimensions (global health/QoL, functional status, and symptom impact). A mixed-model, repeated-measures analyses of covariance evaluated differences between arms.

RESULTS

Questionnaire completion rates were >95% at baseline, >85% to week 40 and >70% at disease progression. Baseline scores across both arms were comparable for all dimensions. Global health dimension scores were significantly better at weeks 8, 16 and 24 for patients receiving the combination during treatment and at progression. The majority of functional dimension scores (physical, social, role, emotional and cognitive functioning) trended in favour of the combination. Pain scores were significantly improved and clinically meaningful (6-13 point difference) for patients receiving the combination for all follow-up assessments versus those receiving dabrafenib monotherapy. For other symptom dimensions (nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, and constipation), scores trended in favour of dabrafenib monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib provides better preservation of HRQoL and pain improvements versus dabrafenib monotherapy while also delaying progression. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT01584648).

Role functioning before start of adjuvant treatment was an independent prognostic factor for survival and time to failure. A report from the Nordic adjuvant interferon trial for patients with high-risk melanoma

PURPOSE

To investigate the role of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at randomization as independent prognostic factors for survival and time to failure, and to explore associations between HRQoL and treatment effects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the Nordic adjuvant interferon trial, a randomized trial evaluating if adjuvant therapy with intermediate-dose IFN had the same beneficial effects on overall and disease-free survival in high-risk melanoma as high-dose IFN, 855 patients in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden were included. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was used to assess HRQoL before randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 785 (92%) agreed to participate in the HRQoL-study and provided baseline HRQoL data. Prognostic variables included in the multivariate model were age, sex, performance status, tumor thickness, stage, and number of positive lymph nodes. Univariate analyses revealed an association between prolonged survival and age, stage/ number of metastatic lymph nodes and the HRQoL variable role functioning (p ≤ 0.01). After controlling for other prognostic factors, these variables remained independently statistically significant for survival. The univariate analyses of time to failure showed significant associations with the clinical variable stage/nodes and with the HRQoL variables physical functioning and role functioning. Adjusted multivariate analyses including the same clinical conditions as above showed statistically significant relationships between time to failure and global quality of life, physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning and fatigue (p ≤ 0.01). No interactions between HRQoL variables and treatment were found, with the exception for cognitive functioning.

CONCLUSION

Role functioning was found to be an independent prognostic factor for time to failure and survival in patients with high-risk melanoma. Thus, also in this early stage of melanoma, HRQoL variables might be useful as important prognostic factors for time to failure and overall survival.

Interferon alpha for the adjuvant treatment of cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Interferon alpha is the only agent approved for the postoperative adjuvant treatment of high-risk cutaneous melanoma. However, the survival advantage associated with this treatment is unclear, especially in terms of overall survival. Thus, adjuvant interferon is not universally considered a gold standard treatment by all oncologists.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the disease-free survival and overall survival effects of interferon alpha as adjuvant treatment for people with high-risk cutaneous melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to August 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2012, issue 8), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2010), AMED (from 1985), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched trials databases in 2011, and proceedings of the ASCO annual meeting from 2000 to 2011. We checked the reference lists of selected articles for further references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interferon alpha to observation (or any other treatment) for the postoperative (adjuvant) treatment of patients with high-risk skin melanoma, that is, people with regional lymph node metastasis (American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM (tumour, lymph node, metastasis) stage III) undergoing radical lymph node dissection, or people without nodal disease but with primary tumour thickness greater than 1 mm (AJCC TNM stage II).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data, and a third author independently verified the extracted data. The main outcome measure was the hazard ratio (HR), which is the ratio of the risk of the event occurring in the treatment arm (adjuvant interferon) compared to the control arm (no adjuvant interferon). The survival data were either entered directly into Review Manager (RevMan) or extrapolated from Kaplan-Meier plots and then entered into RevMan. Based on the presence of between-study heterogeneity, we applied a fixed-effect or random-effects model for calculating the pooled estimates of treatment efficacy.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs enrolling a total of 10,499 participants were eligible for the review. The results from 17 of 18 of these RCTs, published between 1995 and 2011, were suitable for meta-analysis and allowed us to quantify the therapeutic efficacy of interferon in terms of disease-free survival (17 trials) and overall survival (15 trials). Adjuvant interferon was associated with significantly improved disease-free survival (HR (hazard ratio) = 0.83; 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.78 to 0.87, P value < 0.00001) and overall survival (HR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97; P value = 0.003). We detected no significant between-study heterogeneity (disease-free survival: I² statistic = 16%, Q-test P value = 0.27; overall survival: I² statistic = 6%; Q-test P value = 0.38).Considering that the 5-year overall survival rate for TNM stage II-III cutaneous melanoma is 60%, the number needed to treat (NNT) is 35 participants (95% CI = 21 to 108 participants) in order to prevent 1 death. The results of subgroup analysis failed to answer the question of whether some treatment features (i.e. dosage, duration) might have an impact on interferon efficacy or whether some participant subgroups (i.e. with or without lymph node positivity) might benefit differently from interferon adjuvant treatment.Grade 3 and 4 toxicity was observed in a minority of participants: In some trials, no-one had fever or fatigue of Grade 3 severity, but in other trials, up to 8% had fever and up to 23% had fatigue of Grade 3 severity. Less than 1% of participants had fever and fatigue of Grade 4 severity. Although it impaired quality of life, toxicity disappeared after treatment discontinuation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis support the therapeutic efficacy of adjuvant interferon alpha for the treatment of people with high-risk (AJCC TNM stage II-III) cutaneous melanoma in terms of both disease-free survival and, though to a lower extent, overall survival. Interferon is also valid as a reference treatment in RCTs investigating new therapeutic agents for the adjuvant treatment of this participant population. Further investigation is required to select people who are most likely to benefit from this treatment.

An update on pegylated IFN-α2b for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma

For patients with localized melanoma, excision of the primary tumor, including lymphadenectomy for nodal metastases, is standard treatment. However, patients with large primary tumors (stage IIB and IIC) or stage III melanoma have a relatively poor prognosis owing to the high risk of recurrence. High-dose IFN-α2b and pegylated IFN-α2b (PEG-IFN-α2b) are the only approved options for adjuvant therapy of stage III melanoma, but the lack of comparative data has led to considerable confusion in choosing between these options. In this article, current evidence regarding the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and tolerability of adjuvant PEG-IFN-α2b in patients with melanoma is reviewed, with frequent reference to and comparisons with data using IFN-α2b. Particular focus is given to the pharmacokinetic differences between IFN-α2b and PEG-IFN-α2b and their implications for the treatment of high-risk patients. In addition, emerging evidence suggests that PEG-IFN-α2b therapy may provide clinically significant overall survival benefit for selected high-risk patients.