Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.

Neoadjuvant therapy for melanoma: rationale for neoadjuvant therapy and pivotal clinical trials

The treatment of malignant melanoma has drastically changed over the past decade with the advent of immune checkpoint blockade, targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibition, and other novel therapies such as oncolytic virus intralesional therapy. Despite improvements in patient response rates and survival with these new treatments, there exists a large portion of patients with surgically resectable disease that are high risk for relapse. Patients with high-risk resectable melanoma account for up to 20% of newly diagnosed cases. For this high-risk group of patients, neoadjuvant therapy has many purposed advantages over adjuvant therapy, including a more robust immune response due to abundant tumor antigens at treatment initiation, the ability to assess pathologic response to therapy, tumor downstaging leading to increased disease resectability, and a potential decreased need for extensive lymphadenectomies. These findings have been backed by preclinical models and multiple neoadjuvant trials are underway. In this review, we will discuss the trials that have set the foundation for the current treatment standards and discuss the role and rationale for neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk malignant melanomas.

Novel Targets in Melanoma: Intralesional and Combination Therapy to Manipulate the Immune Response

Clinical outcomes for metastatic melanoma have been dramatically altered by recent developments in immunotherapy and targeted strategies, but response to these therapies is not uniform, the majority of patients do not respond, and clinical response can be self-limited. Current directions in melanoma treatment aim to leverage a combination of therapies for tumors refractory to monoimmunotherapy, to include tumor-directed strategies, such as intralesional therapy and inhibitors designed for novel targets, which may augment current systemic agents when used in combination. Here, we summarize new classes of agents and emerging multimodal combination strategies that demonstrate significant promise in future melanoma management.

How we treat locoregional melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer and its incidence has been increasing in the past 30 years. Although this is completely resectable in most cases, thicker melanoma and those with regional lymph-node involvement are at a high risk of relapse. In recent years, the management of locoregional disease has drastically changed. In particular, in the 8th Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), subgroup classification of TNM (tumor–node–metastasis) has been modified, with the addition of the IIID stage. Furthermore, in recent randomized trials, completion lymph node dissection in case of sentinel lymph node biopsy positivity has not been shown to offer any improvement in overall survival versus observation. Consequently, radical dissection has been recommended as the standard treatment, but only in patients with palpable nodal metastases. However, the major novelty in the treatment of locally advanced melanoma has been the introduction of drugs, already used for metastatic disease, that have also shown clinical efficacy in the adjuvant setting. In fact, immunotherapies and, in the case of BRAF V600E/K-mutated melanoma, combination treatment of BRAF and MEK inhibitors have improved recurrence-free survival in these patients. In this paper, we will describe the current management of a patient with radically resectable melanoma and discuss the key points in light of the latest scientific evidence.

•

Melanoma is the deadliest of skin cancers, although most cases are resectable at diagnosis.

•

Use of targeted therapies and immunotherapies as adjuvant treatment revolutionized the scenario in stage III melanoma.

•

In this review, we summarize all current evidence about locoregional melanoma, including open issues and future directions.

Contemporary Neoadjuvant Therapies for High-Risk Melanoma: A Systematic Review

Despite advances in adjuvant immuno- and targeted therapies, the risk of relapse for stage III melanoma remains high. With 43 active entries on clinicaltrials.gov (8 July 2020), there is a surge of interest in the role of contemporary therapies in the neoadjuvant setting. We conducted a systematic review of trials performed in the last decade evaluating neoadjuvant targeted, immuno- or intralesional therapy for resectable stage III or IV melanoma. Database searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were conducted from inception to 13 February 2020. Two reviewers assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts. Trials investigating contemporary neoadjuvant therapies in high-risk melanoma were included. Eight phase II trials (4 randomized and 4 single-arm) involving 450 patients reported on neoadjuvant anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapy (3), anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 immunotherapy (3), and intralesional therapy (2). The safest and most efficacious regimens were dabrafenib/trametinib and combination ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) + nivolumab (3 mg/kg). Pathologic complete response (pCR) and adverse events were comparable. Ipilimumab + nivolumab exhibited longer RFS. Contemporary neoadjuvant therapies are not only safe, but also demonstrate remarkable pCR and RFS-outcomes which are regarded as meaningful surrogates for long-term survival. Studies defining predictors of pCR, its correlation with oncologic outcomes, and phase III trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy to standard of care will be crucial.

The Great Debate at "Melanoma Bridge", Naples, December 7th, 2019

The Great Debate session at the 2019 Melanoma Bridge congress (December 5-7, Naples, Italy) featured counterpoint views from experts on five topical issues in melanoma. These were whether to choose local intratumoral treatment or systemic treatment, whether patients with stage IIIA melanoma require adjuvant therapy or not, whether treatment is better changed at disease progression or during stable disease, whether adoptive cell transfer (ACT) therapy is more appropriate used before or in combination with checkpoint inhibition therapy, and whether treatment can be stopped while the patient is still on response. As was the case for previous meetings, the debates were assigned by meeting Chairs. As such, positions taken by each of the melanoma experts during the debates may not have reflected their respective personal approach.