Burden of Care for Patients With In-Transit Melanoma

A comparison of isolated limb infusion/perfusion, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and intralesional therapy as first-line treatment for patients with melanoma in-transit metastases

BACKGROUND

Isolated limb infusion and perfusion (ILI/ILP) has been a mainstay treatment for unresectable melanoma in-transit metastases (ITM), but increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and intralesional therapy (talimogene laherparepvec [TVEC]) introduced several different management options. This study compares first-line ILI/ILP, ICI, and TVEC.

METHODS

Retrospective review from 12 international institutions included patients treated from 1990 to 2022 with first-line ILI/ILP, ICI, or TVEC for unresectable melanoma ITM.

RESULTS

A total of 551 patients were treated, with ILI/ILP (n = 356), ICI (n = 125), and TVEC (n = 70) with median follow-up of 5.5 years. Tumor burden was highest with ILI/ILP and lowest with TVEC (p = .002). Breslow thickness was lowest with TVEC (p = .007). TVEC was mostly used in stage IIIB disease versus IIIC for ILI/ILP and ICI (p = .01). Using ICI as the reference category, TVEC had the highest odds of a complete response (CR) (odds ratio, 1.96; p = .029) and a longer local progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; p = .003). ILI/ILP had shorter local PFS (HR, 1.72; p = .012), PFS (HR, 1.79; p < .001), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (HR, 1.75; p = .014), overall survival (HR, 1.82; p = .009), and melanoma-specific survival (HR, 2.29; p = .004). Stage IIIB disease had longer DMFS (HR, 0.24; p < .001) compared to IIIC/D.

CONCLUSIONS

TVEC as first-line therapy for unresectable melanoma ITM was associated with superior CR rates and local PFS. Notably, TVEC was used in patients with a lower Breslow thickness, disease stage, and tumor burden. Therefore, when compared to ILI/ILP and ICI, TVEC should be considered as first-line therapy for unresectable stage IIIB melanoma ITM with minimal tumor burden and lower Breslow thickness.

Logistic burdens of cancer care: A qualitative study

Cancer treatment often creates logistic conflicts with everyday life priorities; however, these challenges and how they are subjectively experienced have been largely unaddressed in cancer care. Our goal was to describe time and logistic requirements of cancer care and whether and how they interfered with daily life and well-being. We conducted interviews with 20 adults receiving cancer-directed treatment at a single academic cancer center. We focused on participants' perception of the time, effort, and energy-intensiveness of cancer care activities, organization of care requirements, and preferences in how to manage the logistic burdens of their cancer care. Participant interview transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Burdens related to travel, appointment schedules, healthcare system navigation, and consequences for relationships had roots both at the system-level (e.g. labs that were chronically delayed, protocol-centered rather than patient-centered bureaucratic requirements) and in individual circumstances (e.g. greater stressors among those working and/or have young children versus those who are retired) that determined subjective burdensomeness, which was highest among patients who experienced multiple sources of burdens simultaneously. Our study illustrates how objective burdens of cancer care translate into subjective burden depending on patient circumstances, emphasizing that to study burdens of care, an exclusive focus on objective measures does not capture the complexity of these issues. The complex interplay between healthcare system factors and individual circumstances points to clinical opportunities, for example helping patients to find ways to meet work and childcare requirements while receiving care.