Phase III randomized study of fotemustine and dacarbazine versus dacarbazine with or without interferon-α in advanced malignant melanoma

Chemotherapy in focus: A meta-analysis confronts immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced melanoma

This study aimed to analyze the efficacy of the monoclonal antibodies ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab when compared with conventional chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced melanoma. Three authors made the search independently and five articles matched the eligibility criteria. A fourth expert confirmed their quality (κ = 1). The meta-analysis for overall survival and 12-month overall survival was impaired due to remarkably high heterogeneity (I2 = 91 % and 86 %, respectively). However, chemotherapy showed benefits on 24-months overall survival (RR = 1.60; IC95 %: 1.29, 1.98; p < 0.0001). The interruption by toxicity outcome showed no significant differences between therapies. Some studies used monoclonal antibodies in monotherapy or in combination and some groups of participants showed heterogeneity, which made the analysis difficult. Given the exorbitant costs of monoclonal antibodies in low and middle-income countries, the evidence of its benefits is limited when considering the replacement of conventional therapy with immunotherapy in public health systems.

Treatment of Advanced Melanoma: Past, Present and Future

Therapeutic options for treating advanced melanoma are progressing rapidly. Until six years ago, the regimen for treating advanced melanoma mainly comprised cytotoxic agents such as dacarbazine, and type I interferons. Since 2014, anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD1) antibodies have become recognized as anchor drugs for treating advanced melanoma with or without additional combination drugs such as ipilimumab. In addition, v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) kinase inhibitors in combination with mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors are among the most promising chemotherapeutic regimens for treating advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma, especially in patients with low tumor burden. Since anti-PD1 antibodies are widely applicable for the treatment of both BRAF wild-type and mutated advanced melanomas, several clinical trials for drugs in combination with anti-PD1 antibodies are ongoing. This review focuses on the development of the anti-melanoma therapies available today, and discusses the clinical trials of novel regimens for the treatment of advanced melanoma.

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes in advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.

microRNA-134 inhibits melanoma growth and metastasis by negatively regulating collagen triple helix repeat containing-1 (CTHRC1)

Melanoma, a malignant tumor of melanocytes, is considered to be the most aggressive of skin cancers and its incidence keeps increasing worldwide. miR-134 and CTHRC1 have been demonstrated to be involved in the occurrence and development of various tumors. However, their roles are still elusive in the progression of melanoma. qRT-PCR and western blot (WB) were used to examine the expressions of miR-134 and CTHRC1 in clinical specimens of melanoma patients and melanoma cell lines. Dual-luciferase reporter assay was applied to verify the target interaction between miR-134 and CTHRC1. The mRNA and protein expressions of CTHRC1 were measured by qRT-PCR and WB after treatment by miR-134 inhibitor and mimic. Subsequently, CCK8, colony formation assay, and flow cytometry were utilized to assess the influences of miR-134 and CTHRC1 on cell growth of melanoma. Cell migration and invasion experiments were performed to evaluate the effects of miR-134 and CTHRC1 on metastasis of melanoma. It was shown that CTHRC1 was up-regulated and miR-134 was down-regulated in melanoma patients and cell lines. CTHRC1 was demonstrated to be a direct target of miR-134. Ultimately, we also found that up-regulated miR-134 expression and down-regulated CTHRC1 expression could suppress cell proliferation and cell colony formation, promote apoptosis, delay the cell cycle, and hinder cell migration and invasion. Our findings suggest that miR-134 could inhibit the growth and metastasis of melanoma by negatively regulating CTHRC1.

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.

Relative Efficacy of Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor, Dacarbazine, and Glycoprotein 100 in Metastatic Melanoma: An Indirect Treatment Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have been achieved in recent years: immunotherapies and targeted therapies have demonstrated survival benefits over older agents such as granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), dacarbazine, and glycoprotein peptide vaccine (gp100) in pivotal phase 3 trials. It is important to compare therapies to guide the treatment decision-making process, and establishing the relationship between older agents can strengthen the networks of evidence for newer therapies. We report the outcome of an indirect comparison of GM-CSF, dacarbazine, and gp100 in metastatic melanoma through meta-analysis of absolute treatment effect.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified trials for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A valid network meta-analysis was not feasible: treatment-specific meta-analysis was conducted. A published algorithm was used to adjust overall survival estimates from trials of GM-CSF, dacarbazine, and gp100 for heterogeneity in baseline prognostic factors. Survival estimates were compared in three patient groups: stage IIIB-IV M1c, stage IIIB-IV M1a, and stage IV M1b/c.

RESULTS

One trial of GM-CSF, four of dacarbazine, and one of gp100 were included in the analysis. After adjusting for differences in baseline prognostic factors, median overall survival (OS) in all patient groups was longer for those receiving GM-CSF than for those receiving dacarbazine or gp100. The observed survival over time for GM-CSF was similar to the adjusted survival for dacarbazine and greater than for gp100 in all patient groups.

CONCLUSION

The relative treatment effect of GM-CSF, dacarbazine, and gp100 has been reliably estimated by adjusting for differences in baseline prognostic factors. Results suggest that OS with GM-CSF is at least as good as with dacarbazine and greater than with gp100. Given the role of these agents as controls in phase 3 trials of new immunotherapies and targeted agents, these results can be used to contextualize the efficacy of newer therapies.

FUNDING

Amgen Inc.

Chloroethylating nitrosoureas in cancer therapy: DNA damage, repair and cell death signaling

Chloroethylating nitrosoureas (CNU), such as lomustine, nimustine, semustine, carmustine and fotemustine are used for the treatment of malignant gliomas, brain metastases of different origin, melanomas and Hodgkin disease. They alkylate the DNA bases and give rise to the formation of monoadducts and subsequently interstrand crosslinks (ICL). ICL are critical cytotoxic DNA lesions that link the DNA strands covalently and block DNA replication and transcription. As a result, S phase progression is inhibited and cells are triggered to undergo apoptosis and necrosis, which both contribute to the effectiveness of CNU-based cancer therapy. However, tumor cells resist chemotherapy through the repair of CNU-induced DNA damage. The suicide enzyme O⁶-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) removes the precursor DNA lesion O⁶-chloroethylguanine prior to its conversion into ICL. In cells lacking MGMT, the formed ICL evoke complex enzymatic networks to accomplish their removal. Here we discuss the mechanism of ICL repair as a survival strategy of healthy and cancer cells and DNA damage signaling as a mechanism contributing to CNU-induced cell death. We also discuss therapeutic implications and strategies based on sequential and simultaneous treatment with CNU and the methylating drug temozolomide.

Integrating first-line treatment options into clinical practice: what's new in advanced melanoma?

Melanoma remains a serious form of skin cancer in Europe and worldwide. Localized, early-stage melanomas can usually be treated with surgical excision. However, the prognosis is poorer for patients with advanced disease. Before 2011, treatment for advanced melanoma included palliative surgery and/or radiotherapy, and chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy, such as interleukin-2. As none of these treatments had shown survival benefits in patients with advanced melanoma, European guidelines had recommended that patients be entered into clinical trials. The lack of approved first-line options and varying access to clinical trials meant that European clinicians relied on experimental regimens and chemotherapy-based treatments when no other options were available. Since 2011, ipilimumab, an immuno-oncology therapy, and vemurafenib and dabrafenib, targeted agents that inhibit mutant BRAF, have been approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of advanced melanoma. More recently, the MEK inhibitor, trametinib, received European marketing authorization for use in patients with BRAF mutation-positive advanced melanoma. In 2014, the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab was approved as a first-line therapy in Japan. Whereas nivolumab and another anti-PD-1 antibody, pembrolizumab, were approved as second-line therapies in the USA, their recent approval in Europe are for first-line use based on new clinical trial data in this setting. Together these agents are changing clinical practice and making therapeutic decisions more complex. Here, we discuss current and emerging therapeutic options for the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma, and how these therapies can be optimized to provide the best possible outcomes for patients.

Encapsulation of Cancer Therapeutic Agent Dacarbazine Using Nanostructured Lipid Carrier

The only formula of dacarbazine (Dac) in clinical use is intravenous infusion, presenting a poor therapeutic profile due to the low dispersity of the drug in aqueous solution. To overcome this, a nanostructured lipid carrier (NLC) consisting of glyceryl palmitostearate and isopropyl myristate was developed to encapsulate Dac. NLCs with controlled size were achieved using high shear dispersion (HSD) following solidification of oil-in-water emulsion. The synthesis parameters, including surfactant concentration, the speed and time of HSD were optimized to achieve the smallest NLC with size, polydispersion index and zeta potential of 155 ± 10 nm, 0.2 ± 0.01, and -43.4 ± 2 mV, respectively. The optimal parameters were also employed for Dac-loaded NLC preparation. The resultant NLC loaded with Dac possessed size, polydispersion index and zeta potential of 190 ± 10 nm, 0.2 ± 0.01, and -43.5 ± 1.2 mV, respectively. The drug encapsulation efficiency and drug loading reached 98% and 14%, respectively. This is the first report on encapsulation of Dac using NLC, implying that NLC could be a new potential candidate as drug carrier to improve the therapeutic profile of Dac.

Meta-Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Interferon Combined With Dacarbazine Versus Dacarbazine Alone in Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of interferon (IFN) combined with dacarbazine (DTIC) (experimental group) versus DTIC alone (control group) in cutaneous malignant melanoma. After searching all available databases, eligible articles were identified and subjected to quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3; combined relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for survival rates, response rates, and adverse events. Eight randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2014 involving 795 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with DTIC alone, IFN combined with DTIC significantly increased the overall response rate (RR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.21-2.08, P = 0.0008),the complete response rate (RR = 3.30, 95% CI 1.89-5.76, P < 0.0001), 2-year survival (RR = 1.59, 95% CI 0.99-2.54, P = 0.050) grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity (RR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.32-4.02, P = 0.003), neurotoxicity (RR = 18.15, 95% CI 5.34-61.74, P < 0.00001), and flu-like symptoms (RR = 6.31, 95% CI 1.95-20.39, P = 0.002). The partial response rate, grade ≥3 nausea and vomiting, treatment-related, and 1- and 3-year survival were not significantly different between IFN combined with DTIC and DTIC alone. IFN combined with DTIC may moderately improve the complete response rate, but increases the incidence of adverse events and has no significant effect on 1- and 3-year survival in cutaneous malignant melanoma.

The use of interferon in melanoma patients: a systematic review

Interferon (IFN) and PEG-IFN are the only drugs approved as adjuvant therapy in patients with melanoma at high-risk of recurrence after surgical resection. Several clinical trials of adjuvant IFN, using different doses and durations of therapy, have been conducted in these patients. Results generally suggest relapse-free survival and overall survival benefits; however, questions over the optimal dose and duration of treatment and concerns over toxicity have limited its use. IFN exerts its biological activity in melanoma via multiple mechanisms of action, most of which can be considered as indirect immunomodulatory effects. As such, IFN may also be of benefit in the neoadjuvant setting, where it may have a role in melanoma patients with locally advanced disease for whom immediate surgical excision is not possible. However, this has not been well studied. The use of IFN in patients with metastatic melanoma is controversial, with limited data and no convincing evidence of a survival benefit. However, IFN therapy combined with novel biological and immunotherapies offers the potential for a synergistic effect and improved clinical outcomes. Predictive and prognostic factors to better select melanoma patients for IFN treatment have been identified (e.g. disease stage, ulceration, various cytokines) and may also enhance its therapeutic efficacy, but their incorporation into the clinical decision-making process requires validation in prospective trials. In conclusion, the modest efficacy of IFN shown in clinical trials is largely a reflection of differences in response between patients. Despite advancements in the understanding of its biological mechanisms of action, the huge potential of IFN remains to be fully explored and utilized in patients with melanoma.

Cancer, inflammation, and therapy: effects on cytochrome p450-mediated drug metabolism and implications for novel immunotherapeutic agents

Immune system activation through innate and adaptive systemic mechanisms is critical for protection from pathogens and other antigens. However, uncontrolled systemic inflammation may occur as a consequence of acute and chronic conditions and has multiple clinically relevant effects. Inflammation and cancer are fundamentally linked during development, invasion, and metastasis, yet, paradoxically, many cancers evade immune system detection. Components of cancer inflammation include chemokines, prostaglandins, and cytokines, and these have been shown to downregulate cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme activity. Recently, promising novel anticancer agents that upregulate immune responses have entered into clinical practice and have shown high response rates. These agents, either alone or in combinations, may cause systemic immune-related adverse events, with potential clinical implications for use of concurrent agents metabolized by CYP and other pathways. In this article, the authors focus on what is known about inflammation, cancer, and CYP-mediated drug metabolism; discuss clinical and pharmacologic data regarding novel immunomodulators; and consider their potential interactions with concurrent agents.

Long-lasting complete response of metastatic melanoma to ipilimumab with analysis of the resident immune cells

Even though ipilimumab is a promising antibody used for stage IV melanoma therapy, the response varies and is difficult to predict. We here report on a case of successful treatment with ipilimumab in dacarbazine-resistant metastatic malignant melanoma, including a review of the literature on the long-term treatment results. A 62-year-old patient with a history of a resected lentigo-maligna melanoma 5 years earlier and parotideal metastasis 1 year before was admitted with a newly detected 3.5 cm liver metastasis. Atypical liver resection was performed (R1). Immunohistochemically, CD3+ T-lymphocytes and CD68+ macrophages were detected at the tumour margins and within the parotideal and hepatic melanoma metastases. A sub-analysis of the liver metastasis showed scattered FOX-P3+ regulatory T-lymphocytes as well as multiple CD8+ effector T-cells. Chemotherapy with dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m(2)/day was administered at 4-weeks intervals for 3 months. A follow-up positron-emission computed tomography and liver biopsy revealed melanoma metastases in the liver, lungs, and mediastinum. Compassionate use of ipilimumab was administered at 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for a total of four doses. After an initial increase in tumour size, most lesions responded, but progressive axillary and cervical lymphadenopathy was observed before complete remission was achieved. Side effects included fatigue, dyspnoea, cough, upper abdominal pain with diarrhoea, and gingival hyperplasia. Now, 36 months after ipilimumab therapy and 8 years after the initial melanoma diagnosis, the tumour did not recur. It would be challenging to hypothesize that long intervals between diagnosis and need for treatment, clinical side effects, an initial increase in tumour size and the presence of intra-tumoural T-cells and macrophages might predict tumour response.

Malignant melanoma: epidemiologic aspects, diagnostic and therapeutic approach

In faired skinned population the incidence of melanoma is rapidly increasing. Beside environmental factors (UV-exposure) certainly other reasons for the observed "melanoma epidemic" have to be discussed. For diagnostic procedure classical histopathology is accompanied by immunohistochemistry and more recently molecular techniques. For therapy new modalities are available which-after many years of frustrating search for new drugs-are now able to prolong both disease/progression free and overall survival.