A prospective randomized multicentre phase III trial of fotemustine plus whole brain irradiation versus fotemustine alone in cerebral metastases of malignant melanoma

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 2: Treatment - Update 2022

A unique collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on cutaneous melanoma diagnosis and treatment, based on the systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Cutaneous melanomas are excised with one to 2-cm safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection shall be performed as a staging procedure in patients with tumor thickness ≥1.0 mm or ≥0.8 mm with additional histological risk factors, although there is as yet no clear survival benefit for this approach. Therapeutic decisions in stage III/IV patients should be primarily made by an interdisciplinary oncology team ("tumor board"). Adjuvant therapies can be proposed in stage III/completely resected stage IV patients and are primarily anti-PD-1, independent of mutational status, or alternatively dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF mutant patients. In distant metastases (stage IV), either resected or not, systemic treatment is always indicated. For first-line treatment particularly in BRAF wild-type patients, immunotherapy with PD-1 antibodies alone or in combination with CTLA-4 antibodies shall be considered. In stage IV melanoma with a BRAF-V600  E/K mutation, first-line therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors can be offered as an alternative to immunotherapy. In patients with primary resistance to immunotherapy and harboring a BRAF-V600  E/K mutation, this therapy shall be offered as second-line therapy. Systemic therapy in stage III/IV melanoma is a rapidly changing landscape, and it is likely that these recommendations may change in the near future.

Outcomes of Treatment for Melanoma Brain Metastases

Background

Historically, melanoma with brain metastases has a poor prognosis. In this retrospective medical record review, we report basic clinicopathological parameters and the outcomes of patients with melanoma and brain metastases treated with different treatment modalities before the era of immunotherapy and modern radiotherapy technique.

Methods

Patients with metastatic melanoma were treated with surgery, radiotherapy, and/or systemic therapy from 1998 to 2017. In our study, they were identified and stratified depending on treatment methods. Overall survival was defined as the time from the date of brain metastases to the death or last follow-up (2019 June 1^st). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method that was employed to calculate the hazard ratio.

Results

Six (12%) of 50 patients are still alive as of the last follow-up. The median overall survival from the onset of brain metastases was 11 months. The longest survival time was observed in patients treated by surgery followed by radiotherapy, surgery followed by radiotherapy and systemic therapy, and also radiotherapy followed by systemic therapy. The shortest survival was observed in the best supportive care group and patients treated by systemic therapy only.

Conclusions

Patients with brain metastases achieved better overall survival when treated by combined treatment modalities: surgery followed by radiotherapy (26.6 months overall survival), combining surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy (18.7 months overall survival), and also radiotherapy followed by systemic therapy (13.8 months overall survival).

Melanoma brain metastases - Interdisciplinary management recommendations 2020

Melanoma brain metastases (MBM) are common and associated with a particularly poor prognosis; they directly cause death in 60-70% of melanoma patients. In the past, systemic treatments have shown response rates around 5%, whole brain radiation as standard of care has achieved a median overall survival of approximately three months. Recently, the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and combinations of MAP-kinase inhibitors both have shown very promising response rates of up to 55% and 58%, respectively, and improved survival. However, current clinical evidence is based on multi-cohort studies only, as prospectively randomized trials have been carried out rarely in MBM, independently whether investigating systemic therapy, radiotherapy or surgical techniques. Here, an interdisciplinary expert team reviewed the outcome of prospectively conducted clinical studies in MBM, identified evidence gaps and provided recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, outcome evaluation and monitoring of MBM patients. The recommendations refer to four distinct scenarios: patients (i) with 'brain-only' disease, (ii) with oligometastatic asymptomatic intra- and extracranial disease, (iii) with multiple asymptomatic metastases, and (iv) with multiple symptomatic MBM or leptomeningeal disease. Changes in current management recommendations comprise the use of immunotherapy - preferably combined anti-CTLA-4/PD-1-immunotherapy - in asymptomatic MBM minus/plus stereotactic radiosurgery which remains the mainstay of local brain therapy being safe and effective. Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy provides no clinical benefit in oligometastatic MBM. Among the systemic therapies, combined MAPK-kinase inhibition provides, in BRAF^V600-mutated patients with rapidly progressing or/and symptomatic MBM, an alternative to combined immunotherapy.

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on the Role of Chemotherapy in the Management of Adults With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Brain Tumors

QUESTION 1

Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for the treatment of their brain metastases?

TARGET POPULATION

This recommendation applies to adult patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases amenable to both chemotherapy and radiation treatment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Level 1: Routine use of chemotherapy following WBRT for brain metastases is not recommended. Level 3: Routine use of WBRT plus temozolomide is recommended as a treatment for patients with triple negative breast cancer.

QUESTION 2

Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the treatment of their brain metastases?

RECOMMENDATIONS

Level 1: Routine use of chemotherapy following SRS is not recommended. Level 2: SRS is recommended in combination with chemotherapy to improve overall survival and progression free survival in lung adenocarcinoma patients.

QUESTION 3

Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy alone?

RECOMMENDATION

Level 1: Routine use of cytotoxic chemotherapy alone for brain metastases is not recommended as it has not been shown to increase overall survival.Please see the full-text version of this guideline (https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-treatment-adults-metastatic-brain-tumors/chapter_5) for the target population of each recommendation.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 2: Treatment - Update 2019

A unique collaboration of multidisciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on cutaneous melanoma diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Cutaneous melanomas are excised with 1- to 2-cm safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection shall be performed as a staging procedure in patients with tumour thickness ≥1.0 mm or ≥0.8 mm with additional histological risk factors, although there is as yet no clear survival benefit for this approach. Therapeutic decisions in stage III/IV patients should be primarily made by an interdisciplinary oncology team ("Tumor Board"). Adjuvant therapies in stage III/IV patients are primarily anti-PD-1, independent of mutational status, or dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF-mutant patients. In distant metastasis, either resected or not, systemic treatment is indicated. For first-line treatment, particularly in BRAF wild-type patients, immunotherapy with PD-1 antibodies alone or in combination with CTLA-4 antibodies shall be considered. In particular scenarios for patients with stage IV melanoma and a BRAF-V600 E/K mutation, first-line therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors can be offered as an alternative to immunotherapy. In patients with primary resistance to immunotherapy and harbouring a BRAF-V600 E/K mutation, this therapy shall be offered in second-line. Systemic therapy in stage III/IV melanoma is a rapidly changing landscape, and it is likely that these recommendations may change in the near future.

Impact of radiation, systemic therapy and treatment sequencing on survival of patients with melanoma brain metastases

BACKGROUND

Combining stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and active systemic therapies (STs) achieved favourable survival outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) in retrospective analyses. However, several aspects of this treatment strategy remain poorly understood. We report on the overall survival (OS) of patients with MBM treated with a combination of radiotherapy (RT) and ST as well as the impact of the v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF)-V600 mutation (BRAFmut) status, types of RT and ST and their sequence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data of 208 patients treated with SRS or whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and either immunotherapy (IT) or targeted therapy (TT) within a 6-week interval to RT were analysed retrospectively. OS was calculated from RT to death or last follow-up. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to determine prognostic features associated with OS.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 7.3 months. 139 patients received IT, 67 received TT and 2 received IT and TT within 6 weeks to RT (WBRT 45%; SRS 55%). One-year Kaplan-Meier OS rates were 69%, 65%, 33% and 18% (P < .001) for SRS with IT, SRS with TT, WBRT with IT and WBRT with TT, respectively. Patients with a BRAFmut receiving IT combined with RT experienced higher OS rates (88%, 65%, 50% and 18%). TT following RT or started before and continued thereafter was associated with improved median OS compared with TT solely before RT (12.2 [95% confidence interval {CI} 9.3-15.1]; 9.8 [95% CI 6.9-12.6] versus 5.1 [95% CI 2.7-7.5]; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

SRS and IT achieved the highest OS rates. A BRAFmut appears to be a favourable prognostic factor for OS. For the combination of RT and TT, the sequence appears to be crucial. Combinations of WBRT and ST achieved unprecedentedly high OS rates and warrant further studies.

Brain metastases

An estimated 20% of all patients with cancer will develop brain metastases, with the majority of brain metastases occurring in those with lung, breast and colorectal cancers, melanoma or renal cell carcinoma. Brain metastases are thought to occur via seeding of circulating tumour cells into the brain microvasculature; within this unique microenvironment, tumour growth is promoted and the penetration of systemic medical therapies is limited. Development of brain metastases remains a substantial contributor to overall cancer mortality in patients with advanced-stage cancer because prognosis remains poor despite multimodal treatments and advances in systemic therapies, which include a combination of surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Thus, interest abounds in understanding the mechanisms that drive brain metastases so that they can be targeted with preventive therapeutic strategies and in understanding the molecular characteristics of brain metastases relative to the primary tumour so that they can inform targeted therapy selection. Increased molecular understanding of the disease will also drive continued development of novel immunotherapies and targeted therapies that have higher bioavailability beyond the blood-tumour barrier and drive advances in radiotherapies and minimally invasive surgical techniques. As these discoveries and innovations move from the realm of basic science to preclinical and clinical applications, future outcomes for patients with brain metastases are almost certain to improve.

Melanom

Das Melanom ist der gefährlichste Hautkrebs mit der höchsten Sterblichkeitsrate, der schon bei jungen Menschen auftreten kann und seit Jahrzehnten steigende Inzidenz verzeichnet (Jemal et al. 2007; Little et al. 2012). Jährlich erkranken weltweit etwa 137.000 Menschen am Melanom und 37.000 versterben an der Erkrankung (Boyle et al. 2004). Die Inzidenz liegt weltweit jährlich bei 2,3–2,6/100.000 Einwohner (Pisani et al. 2002). In Deutschland beträgt die Inzidenz 19,2/100.000 Einwohner und es verstarben 2711 Betroffene im Jahre 2010 (Statistisches Bundesamt).

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.

Recent advances in the biology and treatment of brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer: summary of a multidisciplinary roundtable discussion

This article is the result of a round table discussion held at the European Lung Cancer Conference (ELCC) in Geneva in May 2017. Its purpose is to explore and discuss the advances in the knowledge about the biology and treatment of brain metastases originating from non-small cell lung cancer. The authors propose a series of recommendations for research and treatment within the discussed context.

Whole brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases

BACKGROUND

This is an update to the review published in the Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 4).It is estimated that 20% to 40% of people with cancer will develop brain metastases during the course of their illness. The burden of brain metastases impacts quality and length of survival.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) given alone or in combination with other therapies to adults with newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase to May 2017 and the National Cancer Institute Physicians Data Query for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing WBRT versus other treatments for adults with newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and abstracted information in accordance with Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We added 10 RCTs to this updated review. The review now includes 54 published trials (45 fully published reports, four abstracts, and five subsets of data from previously published RCTs) involving 11,898 participants.Lower biological WBRT doses versus controlThe hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) with lower biological WBRT doses as compared with control (3000 cGy in 10 daily fractions) was 1.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.40; P = 0.01; moderate-certainty evidence) in favour of control. The HR for neurological function improvement (NFI) was 1.74 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.84; P = 0.03; moderate-certainty evidence) in favour of control fractionation.Higher biological WBRT doses versus controlThe HR for OS with higher biological WBRT doses as compared with control (3000 cGy in 10 daily fractions) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; P = 0.65; moderate-certainty evidence). The HR for NFI was 1.14 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.42; P = 0.23; moderate-certainty evidence).WBRT and radiosensitisersThe addition of radiosensitisers to WBRT did not confer additional benefit for OS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.12; P = 0.12; moderate-certainty evidence) or for brain tumour response rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.11; P = 0.22; high-certainty evidence).Radiosurgery and WBRT versus WBRT aloneThe HR for OS with use of WBRT and radiosurgery boost as compared with WBRT alone for selected participants was 0.61 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.39; P = 0.24; moderate-certainty evidence). For overall brain control at one year, the HR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.60; P < 0.0001; high-certainty evidence) favouring the WBRT and radiosurgery boost group.Radiosurgery alone versus radiosurgery and WBRTThe HR for local brain control was 2.73 (95% CI 1.87 to 3.99; P < 0.00001; high-certainty evidence)favouring the addition of WBRT to radiosurgery. The HR for distant brain control was 2.34 (95% CI 1.73 to 3.18; P < 0.00001; high-certainty evidence) favouring WBRT and radiosurgery. The HR for OS was 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.25; P = 0.99; moderate-certainty evidence). Two trials reported worse neurocognitive outcomes and one trial reported worse quality of life outcomes when WBRT was added to radiosurgery.We could not pool data from trials related to chemotherapy, optimal supportive care (OSC), molecular targeted agents, neurocognitive protective agents, and hippocampal sparing WBRT. However, one trial reported no differences in quality-adjusted life-years for selected participants with brain metastases from non-small-cell lung cancer randomised to OSC and WBRT versus OSC alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

None of the trials with altered higher biological WBRT dose-fractionation schemes reported benefit for OS, NFI, or symptom control compared with standard care. However, OS and NFI were worse for lower biological WBRT dose-fractionation schemes than for standard dose schedules.The addition of WBRT to radiosurgery improved local and distant brain control in selected people with brain metastases, but data show worse neurocognitive outcomes and no differences in OS.Selected people with multiple brain metastases from non-small-cell lung cancer may show no difference in OS when OSC is given and WBRT is omitted.Use of radiosensitisers, chemotherapy, or molecular targeted agents in conjunction with WBRT remains experimental.Further trials are needed to evaluate the use of neurocognitive protective agents and hippocampal sparing with WBRT. As well, future trials should examine homogeneous participants with brain metastases with focus on prognostic features and molecular markers.

Systemic therapy for brain metastases

Central nervous system metastases cause grave morbidity in patients with advanced malignancies. Lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma are the three most common causes of brain metastases. Although the exact incidence of brain metastases is unclear, there appears to be an increasing incidence which has been attributed to longer survival, better control of systemic disease, and better imaging modalities. Until recently surgical resection of solitary or symptomatic brain metastases, and radiation therapy (either whole-brain radiation therapy or stereotactic radiation) were the mainstay of treatment for patients with brain metastases. The majority of traditional chemotherapies have shown limited activity in the central nervous system, which has been attributed to the blood-brain barrier and the molecular structure of the used agents. The discovery of driver mutations and drugs targeting these mutations has changed the treatment landscape. Several of these targeted small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors do cross the blood-brain barrier and/or have shown activity in the central nervous system. Another major advance in the care of brain metastases has been the advent of new immunotherapeutic agents, for which initial studies have shown intracranial activity. In this chapter, we will review the unique challenges in the treatment of brain metastases. The pertinent clinical studies of chemotherapy in brain metastases will be discussed. The currently reported clinical trials and evidence for use of targeted therapies and immunotherapeutic agents will be emphasized.

Overview of metastatic disease of the central nervous system

In 2016, the American Society of Clinical Oncology reported that 1.7 million Americans were diagnosed with cancer; this number will rise to 2.3 million in the United States and 22 million worldwide in 2030. This rising need is being met by an explosion of new cancer therapies, including: immune checkpoint inhibitors, T-cell therapies, tumor vaccines, antiangiogenic therapies, and various targeted therapies. This armamentarium of targeted therapies has led to better systemic control of disease and longer patient overall survival (OS). The incidence of metastatic disease to the central nervous system (CNS) is rising as patients are living longer with these more effective systemic therapies. Prolonged OS allows increased time to develop CNS metastases. The CNS is also a sanctuary for metastatic tumor cells that are protected from full exposure to therapeutic concentrations of most anticancer agents by the blood-brain barrier, the tumor microenvironment, and immune system. In addition, CNS metastases often develop late in the course of the disease, so patients are frequently heavily pretreated, resulting in drug resistance. Although genomic profiling has led to more effective therapies for systemic disease, the same therapy may not be effective in treating CNS disease, not only due to failure of blood-brain barrier penetration, but from discordance between the molecular profile in systemic and CNS tumor.

RADVAN: a randomised phase 2 trial of WBRT plus vandetanib for melanoma brain metastases - results and lessons learnt

BACKGROUND

Brain metastases occur in up to 75% of patients with advanced melanoma. Most are treated with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), with limited effectiveness. Vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor and rearranged during transfection tyrosine kinases, is a potent radiosensitiser in xenograft models. We compared WBRT with WBRT plus vandetanib in the treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastases.

METHODS

In this double-blind, multi-centre, phase 2 trial patients with melanoma brain metastases were randomised to receive WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) plus 3 weeks of concurrent vandetanib 100 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in brain (PFS brain). The main study was preceded by a safety run-in phase to confirm tolerability of the combination. A post-hoc analysis and literature review considered barriers to recruiting patients with melanoma brain metastases to clinical trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were recruited, six to the safety phase and 18 to the randomised phase. The study closed early due to poor recruitment. Median PFS brain was 3.3 months (90% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-5.6) in the vandetanib group and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2-4.8) in the placebo group (P=0.34). Median overall survival (OS) was 4.6 months (90% CI: 1.6-6.3) and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2-7.2), respectively (P=0.54). The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, alopecia, confusion and nausea. The most common barrier to study recruitment was availability of alternative treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of WBRT plus vandetanib was well tolerated. Compared with WBRT alone, there was no significant improvement in PFS brain or OS, although we are unable to provide a definitive result due to poor accrual. A review of barriers to trial accrual identified several factors that affect study recruitment in this difficult disease area.

Cost and economic burden of adverse events associated with metastatic melanoma treatments in five countries

OBJECTIVE

To estimate per-event cost and economic burden associated with managing the most common and/or severe metastatic melanoma (MM) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK.

METHODS

AEs associated with chemotherapy (dacarbazine, paclitaxel, fotemustine), immunotherapy (ipilimumab), and targeted therapy (vemurafenib) were identified by literature review. Medical resource use data associated with managing AEs were collected through two blinded Delphi panel cycles in each of the five countries. Published costs were used to estimate per-event costs and combined with AEs incidence, treatment usage, and MM prevalence to estimate the economic burden for each country.

RESULTS

The costliest AEs were grade 3/4 events due to immunotherapy (Australia/France: colitis; UK: diarrhea) and chemotherapy (Germany/Italy: neutropenia/leukopenia). Treatment of AEs specific to chemotherapy (Australia/Germany/Italy/France: neutropenia/leukopenia) and targeted therapy (UK: squamous cell carcinoma) contributed heavily to country-specific economic burden.

LIMITATIONS

Economic burden was estimated assuming that each patient experienced an AE only once. In addition, the context of settings was heterogeneous and the number of Delphi panel experts was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Management costs for MM treatment-associated AEs can be substantial. Results could be incorporated in economic models that support reimbursement dossiers. With the availability of newer treatments, establishment of a baseline measure of the economic burden of AEs will be crucial for assessing their impact on patients and regional healthcare systems.

Diagnosis and treatment of melanoma. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline - Update 2016

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is potentially the most dangerous form of skin tumour and causes 90% of skin cancer mortality. A unique collaboration of multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer was formed to make recommendations on CM diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Diagnosis is made clinically using dermoscopy and staging is based upon the AJCC system. CMs are excised with 1-2 cm safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection is routinely offered as a staging procedure in patients with tumours >1 mm in thickness, although there is as yet no clear survival benefit for this approach. Interferon-α treatment may be offered to patients with stage II and III melanoma as an adjuvant therapy, as this treatment increases at least the disease-free survival and less clear the overall survival (OS) time. The treatment is however associated with significant toxicity. In distant metastasis, all options of surgical therapy have to be considered thoroughly. In the absence of surgical options, systemic treatment is indicated. For first-line treatment particularly in BRAF wild-type patients, immunotherapy with PD-1 antibodies alone or in combination with CTLA-4 antibodies should be considered. BRAF inhibitors like dabrafenib and vemurafenib in combination with the MEK inhibitors trametinib and cobimetinib for BRAF mutated patients should be offered as first or second line treatment. Therapeutic decisions in stage IV patients should be primarily made by an interdisciplinary oncology team ('Tumour Board').

Whole Brain Radiotherapy and RRx-001: Two Partial Responses in Radioresistant Melanoma Brain Metastases from a Phase I/II Clinical Trial: A TITE-CRM Phase I/II Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: Kim et al. report two patients with melanoma metastases to the brain that responded to treatment with RRx-001 and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) without neurologic or systemic toxicity in the context of a phase I/II clinical trial. RRx-001 is an reactive oxygen and reactive nitrogen species (ROS/RNS)-dependent systemically nontoxic hypoxic cell radiosensitizer with vascular normalizing properties under investigation in patients with various solid tumors including those with brain metastases. SIGNIFICANCE: Metastatic melanoma to the brain is historically associated with poor outcomes and a median survival of 4 to 5 months. WBRT is a mainstay of treatment for patients with multiple brain metastases, but no significant therapeutic advances for these patients have been described in the literature. To date, candidate radiosensitizing agents have failed to demonstrate a survival benefit in patients with brain metastases, and in particular, no agent has demonstrated improved outcome in patients with metastatic melanoma. Kim et al. report two patients with melanoma metastases to the brain that responded to treatment with novel radiosensitizing agent RRx-001 and WBRT without neurologic or systemic toxicity in the context of a phase I/II clinical trial.

Evolving treatment options for melanoma brain metastases

Melanoma is a leading cause of lost productivity due to premature cancer mortality. Melanoma frequently spreads to the brain and is associated with rapid deterioration in quality and quantity of life. Until now, treatment options have been restricted to surgery and radiotherapy, although neither modality has been well studied in clinical trials. However, the new immune checkpoint inhibitors and molecularly targeted agents that have been introduced for treatment of metastatic melanoma are active against brain metastases and offer new opportunities to improve disease outcomes. New challenges arise, including how to integrate or sequence multiple treatment modalities, and current practice varies widely. In this Review, we summarise evidence for the treatment of melanoma brain metastases, and discuss the rationale and evidence for combination modalities, highlighting areas for future research.

Treatment of Melanoma CNS Metastases

The discovery of the BRAFV600 mutation and the development of targeted therapies directed against this mutation as well as effective immunotherapies with durable benefits have revolutionized the treatment of patients with melanoma. Nonetheless, the frequent occurrence of brain metastases in patients with advanced melanoma represents a significant obstacle to long-term, high quality survival. The application of stereotactic radiation therapy has provided an opportunity to control brain metastases in the majority of patients with metastatic melanoma reducing the impact of these lesions on morbidity and mortality and enabling patients to receive and potentially benefit from these novel systemic treatments. Encouragingly, several of these novel new therapies have shown antitumor activity against CNS metastases that approach that seen against extracranial disease. As a consequence, several effective treatment options are now available for patients with melanoma brain metastases. With these tools in hand, it is anticipated that further investigation into the optimal sequence and/or combination of systemic therapies and local therapies along with multidisciplinary team practice will continue to improve the outcome of patients with this previously life-limiting disease complication.

Multidisciplinary approach to brain metastasis from melanoma: the emerging role of systemic therapies

Melanoma brain metastases are common, difficult to treat, and carry a poor prognosis. Until recently, systemic therapy was ineffective. Local therapy (including surgery, stereotactic radiotherapy, and whole brain radiotherapy) was considered the only option for a chance of disease control in the brain, and was highly dependent on the patient's performance status and age, number and size of brain metastases, and the presence of extracranial metastases. Since 2010, three drugs have demonstrated activity in progressing or "active" brain metastases including the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab (phase II study of 72 patients), and the BRAF inhibitors dabrafenib (phase II study of 172 patients, both previously treated and untreated brain metastases) and vemurafenib (a pilot study of 24 patients with heavily pretreated brain metastases). The challenge and unanswered question for clinicians is how to sequence all the available therapies, both local and systemic, to optimize the patient's quality of life and survival. This is an area of intense clinical research. The treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastases should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team of melanoma experts including a neurosurgeon, medical oncologist, and radiation oncologist. Important clinical features that help determine appropriate first line therapy include single compared with solitary brain metastasis, resectablity, BRAF mutation status of melanoma, rate of progression/performance status, and the presence of extracranial disease.

Delayed leukoencephalopathy of non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases underwent whole brain radiation therapy

To explore the incidence, MR imaging findings, dynamic developing process of delayed leukoencephalopathy (DLE) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with brain metastases patients who undergone whole brain radiation (WBRT) therapy, we retrospectively reviewed 48 NSCLC patients who underwent WBRT for brain metastases from January 2010 through June 2015 and had evaluable magnetic resonance imaging after treatment. The DLE were graded using a scale to evaluate T2-FLAIR (fluid attenuated image recovery) images: grade 1 = little or no white matter hyperintensity, grade 2 = limited periventricular hyperintensity and grade 3 = diffuse white matter hyperintensity. 48 NSCLC patients with brain metastases were enrolled. The median age of these patients was 55.7 years (range 33-75 years). The median follow-up was 12 months. The characteristic MR imaging of DLE in those patients was bilaterally diffuse white matter T2 hyperintensity around the periventricular areas without enhancement, sparing from U-fiber, callosum and gray matter structure. The incidence of DLE developed 6.25% (3/48), 30.00% (12/40), 48.39% (15/31), 61.90% (13/21), 85.71% (6/7), 100% (3/3) in those patients who were followed up for 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, 36 months, respectively. Through increased understanding of it, it may be possible to help clinicians develop further therapeutic strategies to maximize benefit while limiting potential long term toxicities. These data supplement existing reports regarding the late effects of WBRT in NSCLC patients with brain metastasis.

Clinical Management of Multiple Melanoma Brain Metastases: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

The treatment of multiple brain metastases (MBM) from melanoma is controversial and includes surgical resection, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT). Several new classes of agents have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma, allowing some subsets of patients to have long-term survival. Given this, management of MBM from melanoma is continually evolving.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current evidence regarding the treatment of MBM from melanoma.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The PubMed database was searched using combinations of search terms and synonyms for melanoma, brain metastases, radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy published between January 1, 1995, and January 1, 2015. Articles were selected for inclusion on the basis of targeted keyword searches, manual review of bibliographies, and whether the article was a clinical trial, large observational study, or retrospective study focusing on melanoma brain metastases. Of 2243 articles initially identified, 110 were selected for full review. Of these, the most pertinent 73 articles were included.

FINDINGS

Patients with newly diagnosed MBM can be treated with various modalities, either alone or in combination. Level 1 evidence supports the use of SRS alone, WBRT, and SRS with WBRT. Although the addition of WBRT to SRS improves the overall brain relapse rate, WBRT has no significant impact on overall survival and has detrimental neurocognitive outcomes. Cytotoxic chemotherapy has largely been ineffective; targeted therapies and immunotherapies have been reported to have high response rates and deserve further attention in larger clinical trials. Further studies are needed to fully evaluate the efficacy of these novel regimens in combination with radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

At this time, the standard management for patients with MBM from melanoma includes SRS, WBRT, or a combination of both. Emerging data exist to support the notion that SRS in combination with targeted therapies or immune therapy may obviate the need for WBRT; prospective studies are required to fully evaluate the efficacy of these novel regimens in combination with radiation therapy.

Management of melanoma brain metastases

Relapses in the brain remain a major obstacle to cure in many patients with advanced melanoma. At present, the management of melanoma brain metastases continues to rely heavily on surgical and radiotherapeutic interventions, which have become safer and more effective with modern imaging, surgery and radiation technologies. Additionally, novel targeted and immunotherapeutic agents, shown to generate meaningful intracranial response and survival benefit in patients with melanoma brain metastases when compared with historical controls, expand systemic treatment options for this subset of patients. These systemic therapies become particularly important when intracranial disease burden precludes neuro- or radio-surgery. Considerable multidisciplinary research effort is ongoing to improve outcomes for melanoma patients with brain metastases, a key challenge in the management of advanced melanoma.

Radiosensitization by BRAF inhibitor therapy-mechanism and frequency of toxicity in melanoma patients

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that ionizing radiation may be associated with unexpected side-effects in melanoma patients treated with concomitant BRAF inhibitors. A large multicenter analysis was carried out to generate reliable safety data and elucidate the mechanism.

METHODS

A total of 161 melanoma patients from 11 European skin cancer centers were evaluated for acute and late toxicity, of whom 70 consecutive patients received 86 series of radiotherapy with concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy. To further characterize and quantify a possible radiosensitization by BRAF inhibitors, blood samples of 35 melanoma patients were used for individual radiosensitivity testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization of chromosomal breaks after ex vivo irradiation.

RESULTS

With radiotherapy and concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy the rate of acute radiodermatitis ≥2° was 36% and follicular cystic proliferation was seen in 13% of all radiotherapies. Non-skin toxicities included hearing disorders (4%) and dysphagia (2%). Following whole-brain radiotherapy, rates of radiodermatitis ≥2° were 44% and 8% (P < 0.001) for patients with and without BRAF inhibitor therapy, respectively. Concomitant treatment with vemurafenib induced acute radiodermatitis ≥2° more frequently than treatment with dabrafenib (40% versus 26%, P = 0.07). In line with these findings, analysis of chromosomal breaks ex vivo indicated significantly increased radiosensitivity for patients under vemurafenib (P = 0.004) and for patients switched from vemurafenib to dabrafenib (P = 0.002), but not for patients on dabrafenib only. No toxicities were reported after stereotactic treatment.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy with concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy is feasible with an acceptable increase in toxicity. Vemurafenib is a more potent radiosensitizer than dabrafenib.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma patients with brain metastases receiving vemurafenib in the real-world setting

Brain metastases are a common and serious complication among patients with metastatic melanoma. The selective BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma brain metastases (MBM). We examined the real-world application and clinical outcomes of vemurafenib in this patient population. Demographic, treatment patterns, response, and survival data were collected from medical charts. Clinical data on 283 patients with active BRAF V600E-mutant MBM treated with vemurafenib were provided by 70 US oncologists. Mean age was 57.2 years, 60.8% were male, 67.5% had ECOG performance status of 0–1, and 43.1% used corticosteroids at vemurafenib initiation. Median follow-up was 5.7 months. Following vemurafenib initiation, 48.1% of patients experienced intracranial response and 45.6% experienced extracranial response. The Kaplan–Meier estimate for overall survival was 59% at 12 months. Multivariate analyses showed associations between intracranial response and both corticosteroid use and vemurafenib as initial therapy after MBM diagnosis. Larger size (5–10 mm vs. <5 mm) and number of brain metastases (≥5 vs. <2) and progressive extracranial disease at treatment initiation were associated with decreased intracranial response and increased risk of disease progression. Multiple extracranial sites (2 vs. <2) and the absence of local treatments were also associated with increased risk of progression. Increased risk of death was associated with ≥2 extracranial disease sites, progressive extracranial disease, and ≥5 brain metastases. Subgroups of MBM patients may derive more benefit with vemurafenib, warranting prospective investigation.

A Retrospective Evaluation of Vemurafenib as Treatment for BRAF-Mutant Melanoma Brain Metastases

BACKGROUND

RAF inhibitors are an effective therapy for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and brain metastasis. Efficacy data are derived from clinical studies enriched with physiologically fit patients; therefore, it is of interest to assess the real-world experience of vemurafenib in this population. Tumor-specific genetic variants that influence sensitivity to RAF kinase inhibitors also require investigation.

METHODS

Records of patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and brain metastases who were treated with vemurafenib were reviewed. Clinical data were extracted to determine extracranial and intracranial objective response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. A bait-capture, next-generation sequencing assay was used to identify mutations in pretreatment tumors that could explain primary resistance to vemurafenib.

RESULTS

Among patients with intracranial disease treated with vemurafenib, 27 were included in survival analyses and 22 patients were assessable for response. The extracranial and intracranial objective response rates were 71% and 50%, respectively. Discordant responses were observed between extracranial and intracranial metastatic sites in 4 of 19 evaluable patients. Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6-7.9); median intracranial PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI: 2.7-7.9), median OS was 7.5 months (95% CI: 4.3-not reached), with a 30.4% 1-year OS rate. Outcomes were influenced by performance status. Vemurafenib was tolerable, although radiation-induced dermatitis occurred in some patients who received whole-brain radiotherapy. Adequate samples for next-generation sequencing analysis were available for seven patients. Melanomas categorized as "poorly sensitive" (≥20% tumor growth, new lesions, or ≤50% shrinkage for <4 months) harbored co-occurring mutations in genes predicted to activate the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-AKT (PI3K-AKT) pathway.

CONCLUSION

Vemurafenib is highly active in BRAF-mutant melanoma brain metastases but has limited activity in patients with poor performance status. The safety and efficacy of concurrent radiotherapy and RAF inhibition requires careful clinical evaluation. Combination strategies blocking the MAPK and PI3K-AKT pathway may be warranted in a subset of patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Vemurafenib is active for BRAF-mutant intracranial melanoma metastases in an unselected patient population typical of routine oncologic practice. Patients with poor performance status appear to have poor outcomes despite vemurafenib therapy. Preliminary data indicate that co-occurring or secondary alterations in the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-AKT (PI3K-AKT) pathway are involved in resistance to RAF inhibition, thus providing a rationale for dual MAPK and PI3K-AKT pathway inhibition in this patient population.

Ipilimumab and whole brain radiation therapy for melanoma brain metastases

Brain metastases (BM) frequently develop in patients with melanoma and are associated with a poor prognosis. Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is a standard intervention for intracranial disease, particularly in patients with multiple BM. Ipilimumab improves survival in patients with advanced melanoma. The purpose of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of concurrent WBRT and ipilimumab. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 13 consecutive patients treated with WBRT within 30 days of ipilimumab administration. Radiographic response, as measured by serial magnetic resonance imaging scans post-treatment, was graded by modified World Health Organization (mWHO) and immune-related response criteria (irRC) in the 9 patients with follow-up imaging. Treatment-related toxicity was prospectively assessed during treatment. Four of nine patients (44 %) experienced partial response or stable central nervous system (CNS) disease as measured by mWHO criteria. This number increased to 5 patients (56 %) when irRC criteria were used. Rates of treatment-related neurologic toxicity were low with only one patient experiencing grade 3-4 neurologic toxicity. There was a high rate of intratumoral hemorrhage in this patient population, with 10 of 10 patients with post-treatment imaging demonstrating new or increased intratumoral bleeding after WBRT. This retrospective study demonstrates that the primary pattern of CNS response to WBRT and ipilimumab is stable disease and not regression of BM. Furthermore, while the combination of WBRT and ipilimumab may offer promising efficacy, prospective studies are needed to further assess efficacy and toxicity.

Novel treatments for melanoma brain metastases

BACKGROUND

The development of brain metastases is common in patients with melanoma and is associated with a poor prognosis. Treating patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) is a major therapeutic challenge. Standard approaches with conventional chemotherapy are disappointing, while surgery and radiotherapy have improved outcomes.

METHODS

In this article, we discuss the biology of MBMs, briefly outline current treatment approaches, and emphasize novel and emerging therapies for MBMs.

RESULTS

The mechanisms that underlie the metastases of melanoma to the brain are unknown; therefore, it is necessary to identify pathways to target MBMs. Most patients with MBMs have short survival times. Recent use of immune-based and targeted therapies has changed the natural history of metastatic melanoma and may be effective for the treatment of patients with MBMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing a better understanding of the factors responsible for MBMs will lead to improved management of this disease. In addition, determining the optimal treatments for MBMs and how they can be optimized or combined with other therapies, along with appropriate patient selection, are challenges for the management of this disease.

Brain metastases

Brain metastases are the most frequent neurological complication of cancer and the most common brain tumour type. Lung and breast cancers, and melanoma are responsible for up to three-quarters of metastatic brain lesions. Most patients exhibit either headache, seizures, focal deficits, cognitive or gait disorders, which severely impair the quality of life. Brain metastases are best demonstrated by MRI, which is sensitive but non-specific. The main differential diagnosis includes primary tumours, abscesses, vascular and inflammatory lesions. Overall prognosis is poor and depends on age, extent and activity of the systemic disease, number of brain metastases and performance status. In about half of the patients, especially those with widespread and uncontrolled systemic malignancy, death is heavily related to extra-neural lesions, and treatment of cerebral disease doesn't significantly improve survival. In such patients the aim is to improve or stabilize the neurological deficit and maintain quality of life. Corticosteroids and whole-brain radiotherapy usually fulfill this purpose. By contrast, patients with limited number of brain metastases, good performance status and controlled or limited systemic disease, may benefit from aggressive treatment as both quality of life and survival are primarily related to treatment of brain lesions. Several efficacious therapeutic options including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy are available for these patients.

Whole brain radiotherapy for brain metastasis

Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is a mainstay of treatment in patients with both identifiable brain metastases and prophylaxis for microscopic disease. The use of WBRT has decreased somewhat in recent years due to both advances in radiation technology, allowing for a more localized delivery of radiation, and growing concerns regarding the late toxicity profile associated with WBRT. This has prompted the development of several recent and ongoing prospective studies designed to provide Level I evidence to guide optimal treatment approaches for patients with intracranial metastases. In addition to defining the role of WBRT in patients with brain metastases, identifying methods to improve WBRT is an active area of investigation, and can be classified into two general categories: Those designed to decrease the morbidity of WBRT, primarily by reducing late toxicity, and those designed to improve the efficacy of WBRT. Both of these areas of research show diversity and promise, and it seems feasible that in the near future, the efficacy/toxicity ratio may be improved, allowing for a more diverse clinical application of WBRT.

Chemotherapy in the management of brain metastases: the emerging role of fotemustine for patients with melanoma and NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

An estimated 20 - 40% of cancer patients will develop brain metastases that are the most common intracranial tumors in adults. Patients with cerebral metastases represent a variegate group where selection of the most appropriate treatment depends on many patient- and disease-related factors. The impact of therapeutic option on overall survival is lacking and it is important to consider quality of life (QOL) when treating patients with brain metastases.

AREAS COVERED

A considerable proportion of patients are treated with palliative approaches such as whole-brain radiotherapy. The role of chemotherapy was limited in the past. Recently, several chemotherapeutic agents have been identified as potentially useful. This article examines the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety and tolerability of fotemustine (FTM) for the management of patients with cerebral metastasis from melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

EXPERT OPINION

FTM is a third-generation nitrosourea that has proved its efficacy on brain metastases of melanoma and showed promising results for the treatment of brain metastasis of NSCLC because of its ability to pass the blood-brain barrier.

[The role of whole brain radiation therapy for brain metastases]

Brain metastases are the leading cause of intracranial malignancy and a major cause of mortality and morbidity. From 20 to 40% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. The irradiation of the whole brain remains the most commonly undertaken treatment, but should be discussed in relation to other therapeutic alternatives such as stereotactic radiotherapy or the use of new chemotherapy drugs. Its use according to pathology should be discussed. It can lead to a long-term neurocognitive toxicity that should be evaluated more precisely. This literature review aims to highlight the role of whole-brain radiotherapy used alone or in combination with other treatments.

Dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain (BREAK-MB): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Brain metastases are common in patients with metastatic melanoma and median overall survival from their diagnosis is typically 17-22 weeks. We assessed dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain.

METHODS

We undertook a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial in 24 centres in six countries. We enrolled patients with histologically confirmed Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma and at least one asymptomatic brain metastasis (≥5 mm and ≤40 mm in diameter). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were split into two cohorts: those in cohort A had not received previous local treatment for brain metastases and those in cohort B had progressive brain metastases after previous local treatments. Patients received 150 mg oral dabrafenib twice a day until disease progression, death, or unacceptable adverse events. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma who achieved an overall intracranial response, which was defined as a complete response or partial response assessed with a modified form of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1). We included patients who received at least one dose of dabrafenib in efficacy and safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01266967.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 2, 2011, and Aug 5, 2011, we enrolled 172 patients: 89 (52%) in cohort A and 83 (48%) in cohort B. 139 (81%) had Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma. 29 (39·2%, 95% CI 28·0-51·2) of 74 patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma in cohort A achieved an overall intracranial response, as did 20 (30·8%, 19·9-43·4) of 65 in cohort B. One (6·7%, 0·2-31·9) of 15 patients with Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma achieved an overall intracranial response in cohort A, as did four (22·2%, 6·4-47·6) of 18 such patients in cohort B. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 38 (22%) patients. Eleven (6%) patients developed squamous-cell carcinoma (five [6%] patients in cohort A, of whom one also had keratoacanthoma; six [7%] in cohort B). Four grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in cohort A: one blood amylase increase, one convulsion, one lipase increase, and one neutropenia. Two grade 4 events occurred in cohort B: one agranulocytosis and one intracranial haemorrhage. 51 (30%) patients had a serious adverse event. The three most frequent serious adverse events were pyrexia (ten [6%] patients), intracranial haemorrhage (ten [6%]; one treatment-related), and squamous-cell carcinoma (11 [6%]).

INTERPRETATION

Dabrafenib has activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma and brain metastases irrespective of whether they are untreated or have been previously treated but have progressed.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of overall survival comparing 3 mg/kg ipilimumab with alternative therapies in the management of pretreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients treated with 3 mg/kg ipilimumab versus alternative systemic therapies in pretreated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. From these trials, Kaplan-Meier survival curves for each intervention were digitized and combined by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different drug classes.

RESULTS

Of 38 trials identified, 15 formed one interlinked network by drug class to allow for an NMA. Ipilimumab, at a dose of 3 mg/kg, was associated with a greater mean OS time (18.8 months; 95% credible interval [CrI], 15.5-23.0 months) than single-agent chemotherapy (12.3 months; 95% CrI, 6.3-28.0 months), chemotherapy combinations (12.2 months; 95% CrI, 7.1-23.3 months), biochemotherapies (11.9 months; 95% CrI, 7.0-22.0 months), single-agent immunotherapy (11.1 months; 95% CrI, 8.5-16.2 months), and immunotherapy combinations (14.1 months; 95% CrI, 9.0-23.8 months).

CONCLUSION

Results of this NMA were in line with previous findings and suggest that OS with ipilimumab is expected to be greater than with alternative systemic therapies, alone or in combination, for the management of pretreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma.

Diagnosis and treatment of melanoma. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline--Update 2012

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is potentially the most dangerous form of skin tumour and causes 90% of skin cancer mortality. A unique collaboration of multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on CM diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Diagnosis is made clinically and staging is based upon the AJCC system. CMs are excised with one to two centimetre safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) is routinely offered as a staging procedure in patients with tumours more than 1mm in thickness, although there is as yet no clear survival benefit for this approach. Interferon-α treatment may be offered to patients with stage II and III melanoma as an adjuvant therapy, as this treatment increases at least the disease-free survival (DFS) and less clear the overall survival (OS) time. The treatment is however associated with significant toxicity. In distant metastasis, all options of surgical therapy have to be considered thoroughly. In the absence of surgical options, systemic treatment is indicated. BRAF inhibitors like vemurafenib for BRAF mutated patients as well as the CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab offer new therapeutic opportunities apart from conventional chemotherapy. Therapeutic decisions in stage IV patients should be primarily made by an interdisciplinary oncology team ('tumour board').