The evaluation of immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment on melanoma: a network meta-analysis

The effects of patchouli alcohol and combination with cisplatin on proliferation, apoptosis and migration in B16F10 melanoma cells

Melanoma is a highly metastatic cancer with a low incidence rate, but a high mortality rate. Patchouli alcohol (PA), a tricyclic sesquiterpene, is considered the main active component in Pogostemon cablin Benth, which improves wound healing and has anti-tumorigenic activity. However, the pharmacological action of PA on anti-melanoma remains unclear. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the role of PA in the proliferation, cell cycle, apoptosis and migration of melanoma cells. These results indicated that PA selectively inhibited the proliferation of B16F10 cells in a dose- and time-dependent manner. It induced cell cycle arrest at the G₀ /G₁ phase and typical morphological changes in apoptosis, such as chromatin condensation, DNA fragmentation and apoptotic bodies. In addition, PA reduced the migratory ability of B16F10 cells by upregulating E-cadherin and downregulating p-Smad2/3, vimentin, MMP-2 and MMP-9 expression. PA was also found to strongly suppress tumour growth in vivo. Furthermore, PA combined with cisplatin synergistically inhibited colony formation and migration of B16F10 cells and attenuated the development of resistance to treatment. Therefore, the results of this study indicate that PA may play a pivotal role in inducing apoptosis and reducing the migration of melanoma cells, and may thus be a potential candidate for melanoma treatment.

18F-FDG PET/CT imaging of primary malignant melanoma of rectum with liver metastases mimicking rectum cancer: case report and literature review

Malignant melanoma (MM) is an aggressive malignant tumor, which mostly occurs on the skin, uvea, etc. The mucosal MM accounts for a small proportion of all MM and can occur in the digestive tract. Primary MM of the digestive tract is rare and can be found in the middle and lower third of the esophagus and the rectum containing melanocytes. Primary rectal MM often occurs in middle-aged and elderly women, with rapid progress and strong invasion. We report a case of a 61-year-old man diagnosed with primary malignant melanoma of the rectum with liver metastases mimicking rectum cancer. ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT showed the rectal wall was markedly thickened with a high metabolic level (SUVmax 10.6) and the boundary between the lesions and the prostate was unclear. In addition, increased FDG uptake were found in multiple lymph nodes, lung, liver, and bones, suggesting metastasis. In this case, ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT shows the advantage of evaluating the whole-body situation and provides valuable information for the diagnosis, tumor stage, evaluation of treatment efficacy, and prognosis of MM.

Anti-Proliferative, Pro-Apoptotic, Anti-Migrative and Tumor-Inhibitory Effects and Pleiotropic Mechanism of Theaflavin on B16F10 Melanoma Cells

Purpose

Theaflavin (TF) is a primary pigment of tea, exhibiting anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic and anti-metastatic activities on cancer cell lines. However, it is unknown whether TF is effective in treating melanoma cells.

Methods

To determine the effects of TF on melanoma cells, we conducted in vitro assays of cell viability, DAPI staining, wound healing, transwell, and flow cytometry as well as in vivo experiments on B16F10-bearing mouse model. Real-time PCR (qPCR) and Western blot (WB) were conducted to explore the molecular actions of TF.

Results

The cell viability assay showed that TF exerted inhibitory effect on B16F10 cells in a dose-dependent manner from 40 to 400 μg/mL, with IC₅₀ values ranging from 223.8±7.1 to 103.7±7.0 μg/mL. Moreover, TF induced early and late apoptosis and inhibited migration/invasion of B16F10 cells in a dose-dependent manner, indicating its pro-apoptotic and anti-migrative effects. In vivo, TF significantly inhibited B16F10 tumor size in mice model from 40 to 120 mg/kg, which exerted higher effect than that of cisplatin. The molecular data showed that TF significantly up-regulated the mRNA expressions of pro-apoptotic genes (Bax, Casp3, Casp8, c-fos, c-Jun, and c-Myc), up-regulated the protein expressions of apoptosis-related p53 and JNK signaling molecules (ASK1, phosphorylated Chk1/2, cleaved caspase 3, phosphorylated JNK, c-JUN, cleaved PARP, and phosphorylated p53), and down-regulated the protein expressions of proliferation-related MEK/ERK and PI3K/AKT signaling molecules (phosphorylated MEK1/2, phosphorylated ERK1/2, phosphorylated PI3K, and phosphorylated AKT) as well as the expressions of MMP2 and MMP9.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that TB exhibited anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, anti-migrative, and tumor-inhibitory effects on melanoma cells through pleiotropic actions on the above pathways. This study provides new evidence of anti-melanoma efficacy and mechanism of TF, contributing to the development of TF-derived natural products for melanoma therapy.

Efficacy and safety of carbon-ion radiotherapy for the malignant melanoma: A systematic review

Malignant melanomas (MMs) were the fifth most common cancer in men and the sixth most common cancer in women in 2018, respectively. These are characterized by high metastatic rates and poor prognoses. We systematically reviewed safety and efficacy of carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for treating MMs. Eleven studies were eligible for review, and the data showed that MM patients showed better local control with low recurrence and mild toxicities after CIRT. Survival rates were slightly higher in patients with cutaneous or uveal MMs than in those with mucosal MMs. CIRT in combination with chemotherapy produced higher progression-free survival rates than CIRT only. In younger patients, higher rates of distant metastases of gynecological MMs were observed. The data indicated that CIRT is effective and safe for treating MMs; however, a combination with systemic therapy is recommended to ensure the best possible prognosis for MMs.

The promise of Immuno-oncology: implications for defining the value of cancer treatment

The rapid development of immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies for multiple types of cancer has transformed the cancer treatment landscape and brightened the long-term outlook for many patients with advanced cancer. Responding to ongoing efforts to generate value assessments for novel therapies, multiple stakeholders have been considering the question of "What makes I-O transformative?" Evaluating the distinct features and attributes of these therapies, and better characterizing how patients experience them, will inform such assessments. This paper defines ways in which treatment with I-O is different from other therapies. It also proposes key aspects and attributes of I-O therapies that should be considered in any assessment of their value and seeks to address evidence gaps in existing value frameworks given the unique properties of patient outcomes with I-O therapy. The paper concludes with a "data needs catalogue" (DNC) predicated on the belief that multiple key, unique elements that are necessary to fully characterize the value of I-O therapies are not routinely or robustly measured in current clinical practice or reimbursement databases and are infrequently captured in existing research studies. A better characterization of the benefit of I-O treatment will allow a more thorough assessment of its benefits and provide a template for the design and prioritization of future clinical trials and a roadmap for healthcare insurers to optimize coverage for patients with cancers eligible for I-O therapy.

Can the plasma PD-1 levels predict the presence and efficiency of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with metastatic melanoma?

BACKGROUND

The immune response in melanoma patients is locally affected by presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), generally divided into brisk, nonbrisk, and absent. Several studies have shown that a greater presence of TILs, especially brisk, in primary melanoma is associated with a better prognosis and higher survival rate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We investigated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) the correlation between PD-1 levels in plasma and the presence/absence of TILs in 28 patients with metastatic melanoma.

RESULTS

Low plasma PD-1 levels were correlated with brisk TILs in primary melanoma, whereas intermediate values correlated with the nonbrisk TILs, and high PD-1 levels with absent TILs. Although the low number of samples did not allow us to obtain a statistically significant correlation between the plasma PD-1 levels and the patients' overall survival depending on the absence/presence of TILs, the median survival of patients having brisk type TILs was 5 months higher than that of patients with absent and nonbrisk TILs.

CONCLUSIONS

This work highlights the ability of measuring the plasma PD-1 levels in order to predict the prognosis of patients with untreated metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation at the time of diagnosis.

Mechanism of miR-137 regulating migration and invasion of melanoma cells by targeting PIK3R3 gene

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of microRNA-137 (miR-137) on the migration and invasion of melanoma cells and its mechanism.

METHODS

Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was used to detect the expression of miR-137 in melanoma tissues and cells. miR-137 mimics, phosphoinositide-3-kinase regulatory subunit 3 (PIK3R3) small interfering RNA and corresponding controls were transfected into A375 and WM451 cells by lipofection. The expression of PIK3R3 was examined by qRT-PCR and Western blot analysis. The Trans-well assay was conducted to measure cell migration and invasion. Dual luciferase reporter assay was used to detect the interaction between miR-137 and PIK3R3.

RESULTS

Compared with normal pigmented nevus tissue, miR-137 expression was significantly reduced in melanoma tissues. Compared with keratinous HaCaT cells, the level of miR-137 was significantly decreased in melanoma SK-MEL-1, A375, and WM451 cells. Knockdown of miR-137 significantly reduced the migrated and invasive abilities of melanoma A375 and WM451 cells. Moreover, inhibition of PIK3R3 obviously suppressed the migration and invasion abilities of melanoma A375 and WM451 cells. Luciferase activity assay showed that PIK3R3 was a direct target of miR-137. In addition, overexpression of miR-137-inhibited PIK3R3 expression, while knockdown of miR-137-enhanced PIK3R3 abundance. Restoration of PIK3R3 reversed the regulatory effect of miR-137 on cell migration and invasive in melanoma A375 and WM451 cells.

CONCLUSION

miR-137 inhibited melanoma cell migration and invasion by targeting PIK3R3 gene.

Incidence of Ipilimumab-Related Serious Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Little is known about the incidence of ipilimumab-related serious adverse events (SAEs) across various tumor types, drug doses and treatment regimens.

Methods: PubMed database was searched up to November, 2017 to identify prospective clinical trials of ipilimumab therapy for adult patients with cancer. Comparisons of the incidence were based on the χ² test in univariate analysis and the logistic regression model in multivariate analysis.

Results: Twenty-four studies (4549 patients) with 35 independent study cohorts (21 melanoma, 6 prostate cancer, 5 NSCLC, and 3 SCLC cohorts) of ipilimumab were included in the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of SAEs during ipilimumab mono-therapy was 26.1% (95% CI, 21.1%-31.8%). SAEs were more frequent in the 10 mg/kg groups than in the 3 mg/kg groups (35.9% vs 17.3%; P < 0.001). Combination therapy showed significantly higher incidence than mono-therapy in melanoma (33.8% vs 25.0%; P = 0.002). After adjustment for potential confounders, multivariable analyses demonstrated lower odds of SAEs in NSCLC (odds ratio [OR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.40-0.69, P < 0.001) and SCLC (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.31-0.54, P < 0.001) compared with melanoma. The 10mg/kg cohort presented significantly higher odds than the 3mg/kg (OR 2.84, 95% CI 2.35-3.43, P < 0.001). The combination therapy showed significantly higher odds than the mono-therapy (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.71, P = 0.003).

Conclusions: The incidence of ipilimumab-related SAEs was higher in melanoma, the 10mg/kg group and during combination therapy. Clinicians should enhance awareness of these risk factors in clinical practice and carefully monitor patients.

Gastrointestinal adverse events with combination of checkpoint inhibitors in advanced melanoma: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Immunotherapies, including checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, are revolutionizing the treatment of advanced melanoma. Combining CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors provides additional clinical benefit compared with single agents alone. However, combination therapy can increase the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (GI AEs). This systematic review assessed the epidemiological, clinical, economic, and humanistic burden of GI AEs due to combination CIs in advanced melanoma.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched (December 2011 to December 2016) to identify primary studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and conference proceedings (2014-2016) evaluating adults treated with ≥2 CIs for advanced melanoma.

RESULTS

Of the 3391 identified articles, 14 were included. Most studies examined the ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination. Any grade and grade 3-4 GI AEs occurred in more patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab versus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone. The most common grade 3-4 GI AEs were diarrhea and colitis. Grade 3-4 colitis occurred in more patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab. However, grade 3-4 diarrhea occurred at the same rate as ipilimumab alone. GI AEs developed with ipilimumab plus nivolumab approximately 6.6 weeks after initiating treatment. No studies assessing the economic or humanistic burden of GI AEs were identified.

CONCLUSION

GI AEs occurred at a higher rate and greater severity in patients treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab versus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy. The lack of research on economic and humanistic burden of GI AEs with combination CIs for advanced melanoma represents an unmet need in the literature and should be explored in future studies.

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.

Immunotherapy as a Promising Treatment for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Prostate cancer treatment is currently based on surgical removal, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy. In recent years, another therapeutic method has emerged—immunological treatment. Immunotherapy modulates and strengthens one's immune responses against cancer. Neoplastic cells naturally escape from the control of the immune system, and the main goal of immune therapy is to bring the control back. Satisfying outcomes after treatment of advanced melanoma and lung cancer suggest a great potential of immunotherapy as an approach for other tumors' treatment, especially in patients primarily introduced to palliative care. After initial clinical trials, immunotherapy seems to have different side effects than chemotherapy. Prostate cancer was the first neoplasm in which a specific vaccine significantly improved survival. There is a tremendous potential for synergistic combinations of immunotherapy with conventional cancer treatments. A combination of several drugs or methods can be a key in radical treatment of metastatic prostate cancer as demonstrated by preliminary studies.