Prospective evaluation of supportive care with or without CVD chemotherapy as a second-line treatment in advanced melanoma by patient’s choice: a multicentre Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group trial

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.

Chemotherapy in Cutaneous Melanoma: Is There Still a Role?

Purpose of Review

In the preceding decade, the management of metastatic cutaneous melanoma has been revolutionised with the development of highly effective therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors (specifically CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors) and targeted therapies (BRAF and MEK inhibitors). The role of chemotherapy in the contemporary management of melanoma is undefined.

Recent Findings

Extended analyses highlight substantially improved 5-year survival rates of approximately 50% in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with first-line therapies. However, most patients will progress on these first-line treatments. Sequencing of chemotherapy following failure of targeted and immunotherapies is associated with low objective response rates and short progression-free survival, and thus, meaningful benefits to patients are minimal.

Summary

Chemotherapy has limited utility in the contemporary management of cutaneous melanoma (with a few exceptions, discussed herein) and should not be the standard treatment sequence following failure of first-line therapies. Instead, enrolment onto clinical trials should be standard-of-care in these patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Versus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma After First-Line Treatment in China

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy (paclitaxel + carboplatin [PC]) in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma after first-line treatment from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

We conducted a partitioned-survival model with a 1-week cycle length and a 20-year base-case time horizon. Piecewise parametric models were fitted to KEYNOTE-006 trial data to estimate progression-free survival and overall survival for pembrolizumab, and a network meta-analysis was used to estimate the clinical outcomes for standard of care. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using EQ-5D data from KEYNOTE-006, applying Chinese-specific utility tariffs. Costs included drug acquisition, administration, adverse events, and disease management, reflecting the Chinese pricing system. Chinese-specific disease management costs were estimated based on clinical opinion on health state resource use and chemotherapy-related adverse events. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Multiple deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the treatment of pembrolizumab is estimated to yield 2.63 life-years (LYs) and 2.24 QALYs at an incremental cost of ¥372 316.46 versus PC. The incremental costs per LY and per QALY were ¥141 771.00 and ¥165 865.69, respectively, the latter being below a threshold of 3 times the per capita gross domestic product (￥193 932) in China, deemed as cost-effective according to the World Health Organization threshold. These findings were robust against a wide range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab is projected as cost-effective compared with PC in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma after first-line treatment in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab compared to standard of care as first line treatment for patients with advanced melanoma in Hong Kong

Background

Pembrolizumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) compared to ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naïve advanced melanoma; however, there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness for pembrolizumab compared to standard-of-care treatments currently used in Hong Kong for advanced melanoma.

Methods

A partitioned-survival model based on data from a recent randomized phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006) and meta-analysis was used to derive time in PFS, OS, and post-progression survival for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, such as dacarbazine (DTIC), temozolomide (TMZ), and the paclitaxel-carboplatin combination (PC). A combination of clinical trial data, published data, results of meta-analysis, and melanoma registry data was used to extrapolate PFS and OS curves. The base-case time horizon for the model was 30 years with costs and health outcomes discounted at a rate of 5% per year. Individual patient level data on utilities and frequencies of adverse events were obtained from the final analysis of KEYNOTE-006 (cut-off date: 3-Dec-15) for pembrolizumab. Cost data included drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and clinical management of advanced melanoma. The distribution of patient weight from the Hong Kong population was applied to calculate the drug costs. Analyses were performed from a payer's perspective. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost in US Dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the main outcome.

Results

In base-case scenario, the ICER for pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for advanced melanoma was USD49,232 compared to DTIC, with the ICER values lower than cost-effectiveness threshold in Hong Kong. Results comparing pembrolizumab to TMZ and to PC were similar to that when compared to DTIC. Probability sensitivity analyses showed that 99% of the simulated ICERs were below three times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita for Hong Kong (currently at $119,274//QALY threshold). In a scenario analysis comparing pembrolizumab with ipilimumab, the estimated ICER was USD8,904.

Conclusions

Pembrolizumab is cost-effective relative to chemotherapy (DTIC, TMZ and PC), and highly-cost-effective compared to ipilimumab, for the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma in Hong Kong.

The impact of current treatment modalities on the outcomes of patients with melanoma brain metastases: A systematic review

Patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) still have a very poor prognosis. Several treatment modalities have been investigated in an attempt to improve the management of MBM. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of current treatments for MBM on patient‐ and tumor‐related outcomes, and to provide treatment recommendations for this patient population. A literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was conducted up to January 8, 2019. Original articles published since 2010 describing patient‐ and tumor‐related outcomes of adult MBM patients treated with clearly defined systemic therapy were included. Information on basic trial demographics, treatment under investigation and outcomes (overall and progression‐free survival, local and distant control and toxicity) were extracted. We identified 96 eligible articles, comprising 95 studies. A large variety of treatment options for MBM were investigated, either used alone or as combined modality therapy. Combined modality therapy was investigated in 71% of the studies and resulted in increased survival and better distant/local control than monotherapy, especially with targeted therapy or immunotherapy. However, neurotoxic side‐effects also occurred more frequently. Timing appeared to be an important determinant, with the best results when radiotherapy was given before or during systemic therapy. Improved tumor control and prolonged survival can be achieved by combining radiotherapy with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. However, more randomized controlled trials or prospective studies are warranted to generate proper evidence that can be used to change the standard of care for patients with MBM.

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.

A new promising way of maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer: a comparative clinical study

Background

There is an urgent need for more novel and efficacious therapeutic agents and strategies for the treatment of ovarian cancer - one of the most formidable female malignancies. These approaches should be based on comprehensive understanding of the pathobiology of this cancer and focused on decreasing its recurrence and metastasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of five-year maintenance therapy with indole-3-carbinol (I3C) as well as I3C and epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) conducted before, during, and after combined treatment compared with combined treatment alone in advanced ovarian cancer.

Methods

Patients with stage III-IV serous ovarian cancer were assigned to receive combined treatment plus I3C (arm 1), combined treatment plus I3C and EGCG (arm 2), combined treatment plus I3C and EGCG plus long-term platinum-taxane chemotherapy (arm 3), combined treatment alone without neoadjuvant platinum-taxane chemotherapy (control arm 4), and combined treatment alone (control arm 5). Combined treatment included neoadjuvant platinum-taxane chemotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant platinum-taxane chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and rate of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer with ascites after combined treatment.

Results

After five years of follow-up, maintenance therapy dramatically prolonged PFS and OS compared to control. Median OS was 60.0 months (95% CI: 58.0–60.0 months) in arm 1, 60.0 months (95% CI: 60.0–60.0 months) in arms 2 and 3 while 46.0 months (95% СI: 28.0–60.0 months) in arm 4, and 44.0 months (95% СI: 33.0–58.0 months) in arm 5. Median PFS was 39.5 months (95% СI: 28.0–49.0 months) in arm 1, 42.5 months (95% СI: 38.0–49.0 months) in arm 2, 48.5 months (95% СI: 39.0–53.0 months) in arm 3, 24.5 months (95% СI: 14.0–34.0 months) in arm 4, 22.0 months (95% СI: 15.0–26.0 months) in arm 5. The rate of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer with ascites after combined treatment was significantly less in maintenance therapy arms compared to control.

Conclusions

Long-term usage of I3C and EGCG may represent a new promising way of maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer patients, which achieved better treatment outcomes.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered with ANZCTR number: ACTRN12616000394448. Date of registration: 24/03/2016.

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.

Systematic review of psychosocial outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

New advanced melanoma therapies are associated with improved survival; however, quality of survivorship, particularly psychosocial outcomes, for patients overall and those treated with newer therapies is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

Synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence about psychosocial outcomes for advanced (stage III/IV) melanoma patients.

METHODS

Five databases were searched (01/01/1980 to 31/01/2016). Inclusion criteria were as follows: advanced melanoma patients or sub-group analysis; assessed psychosocial outcomes; and English language.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met review criteria (4 qualitative, 48 quantitative). Trials comprise mostly medical not psychosocial interventions, with psychosocial outcomes assessed within broader quality of life measures. Patients receiving chemotherapy or IFN-alpha showed decreased emotional and social function and increased distress. Five trials of newer therapies appeared to show improvements in emotional and social function. Descriptive studies suggest that patients with advanced, versus localized disease, had decreased emotional and social function and increased distress. Contributors to distress were largely unexplored, and no clear framework described coping/adjustment trajectories. Patients with advanced versus localized disease had more supportive care needs, particularly amount, quality, and timing of melanoma-related information, communication with and emotional support from clinicians. Limitations included: lack of theoretical underpinnings guiding study design; inconsistent measurement approaches; small sample sizes; non-representative sampling; and cross-sectional design.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality trial evidence is needed to clarify the impact of treatment innovations for advanced melanoma on patients' psychosocial well-being. Survivorship research and subsequent translation of that knowledge into programs and services currently lags behind gains in the medical treatment of advanced melanoma, a troubling circumstance that requires immediate and focused attention.

Chemotherapy for Melanoma

Prior to the recent therapeutic advances, chemotherapy was the mainstay of treatment options for advanced-stage melanoma. A number of studies have investigated various chemotherapy combinations in order to expand on the clinical responses achieved with single-agent dacarbazine, but these have not demonstrated an improvement in overall survival. Similar objective responses were observed with the combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel as were seen with single-agent dacarbazine. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, known as biochemo-therapy, has shown high clinical responses; however, biochemo-therapy has not been shown to improve overall survival and resulted in increased toxicities. In contrast, palliation and long-term responses have been observed with localized treatment with isolated limb perfusion or infusion in limb-isolated disease. Although new, improved therapeutic options exist for first-line management of advanced-stage melanoma, chemotherapy may still be important in the palliative treatment of refractory, progressive, and relapsed melanoma. We review the various chemotherapy options available for use in the treatment and palliation of advanced-stage melanoma, discuss the important clinical trials supporting the treatment recommendations, and focus on the clinical circumstances in which treatment with chemotherapy is useful.

What is the role of chemotherapy in the treatment of melanoma?

The approval of ipilimumab and inhibitors of the BRAF pathway for the treatment of melanoma has provided multiple therapeutic options for patients. Although these new agents improve survival compared with chemotherapy alone, the majority of patients will progress and will receive chemotherapy at some point in the course of their disease. Whether the clinical efficacy of chemotherapy can be improved by targeting resistance mechanisms is an area of active investigation. In addition, chemotherapy may be of use modulating the efficacy of the newer agents.

Targeting BRAF in melanoma: biological and clinical challenges

Melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer that causes the greatest number of skin cancer-related deaths worldwide. In its early stages malignant melanoma can be cured by surgical resection, but once it has progressed to the metastatic stage it is extremely difficult to treat and does not respond to current therapies. A majority of cutaneous melanomas show activating mutations in the NRAS or BRAF proto-oncogenes, components of the Ras-Raf-Mek-Erk (MAPK) signal transduction pathway. The discovery of activating BRAF mutations in ∼50% of all melanomas has proved to be a turning point in the therapeutic management of the disseminated disease. This review summarizes the critical role of BRAF in melanoma pathophysiology, the clinical and pathological determinants of BRAF mutation status and finally addresses the current state of the art of BRAF inhibitors. We further outline the most recent findings on the mechanisms that underlie intrinsic and acquired BRAF inhibitor resistance and describe ongoing preclinical and clinical studies designed to delay or abrogate the onset of therapeutic escape.

Metastatic melanoma - a review of current and future drugs

Background:

Melanoma is one of the most aggressive cancers, and it is estimated that 76,250 men and women will be diagnosed with melanoma of the skin in the USA in 2012. Over the last few decades many drugs have been developed but only in 2011 have new drugs demonstrated an impact on survival in metastatic melanoma.

Methods:

A systematic search of literature was conducted, and studies providing data on the effectiveness of current and/or future drugs used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma were selected for review. This review discusses the advantages and limitations of these agents, evaluating past, current and future clinical trials designed to overcome such limitations.

Results:

To date, there are four drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for melanoma (dacarbazine, interleukin-2, ipilimumab and vemurafenib). Despite efforts to develop new drugs, few of them have demonstrated any clinical benefits. Approved in 1975, dacarbazine remains the gold standard in chemotherapy, although ipilimumab and vemurafenib have raised many hopes in the last few years. Combining dacarbazine or other chemotherapy agents with new pharmacological agents may be a new way to achieve better clinical responses in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Discussion:

Advances in the molecular knowledge of melanoma have led to major improvements in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma, providing new targets and insights. However, heterogeneity amongst study populations, different approaches to treatment and the different melanoma types and localisations included in the trials makes their comparison difficult. New studies focusing on drugs developed in recent decades are warranted.