Multicenter randomized trial of dacarbazine alone or in combination with two different doses and schedules of interferon alfa-2a in the treatment of advanced melanoma

The challenge of primary gastric melanoma: a systematic review

Aim:

Primary gastric melanoma is a rare clinical presentation. The purpose of this review was to compare the 1-year survival in patients who underwent surgery with patients who did not receive treatment.

Patients & methods:

A systematic search of databases for case reports and case series of primary gastric melanoma was conducted.

Results:

The mean survival of patients was 22 months. One-year survival was 56.5% with surgery, rising to 66% with adjuvant therapy. Mean survival of the surgical group was 21.05 months (±20.2) versus 4.5 months (±3.61) in the nonsurgical group.

Conclusion:

Primary gastric melanoma has a poor prognosis but early surgical intervention can have a significant impact on patient outcome. We reviewed the biology and clinical diagnosis of gastrointestinal melanoma and the current management options available.

Current Perspectives on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Of the ~129,079 new cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and 72,987 associated deaths estimated for 2018, the majority will be geographically localized to South East Asia, and likely to show an upward trend annually. It is thought that disparities in dietary habits, lifestyle, and exposures to harmful environmental factors are likely the root cause of NPC incidence rates to differ geographically. Genetic differences due to ethnicity and the Epstein Barr virus (EBV) are likely contributing factors. Pertinently, NPC is associated with poor prognosis which is largely attributed to lack of awareness of the salient symptoms of NPC. These include nose hemorrhage and headaches and coupled with detection and the limited therapeutic options. Treatment options include radiotherapy or chemotherapy or combination of both. Surgical excision is generally the last option considered for advanced and metastatic disease, given the close proximity of nasopharynx to brain stem cell area, major blood vessels, and nerves. To improve outcome of NPC patients, novel cellular and in vivo systems are needed to allow an understanding of the underling molecular events causal for NPC pathogenesis and for identifying novel therapeutic targets and effective therapies. While challenges and gaps in current NPC research are noted, some advances in targeted therapies and immunotherapies targeting EBV NPCs are discussed in this chapter, which may offer improvements in outcome of NPC patients.

A Population-based Study of Survival Impact of New Targeted and Immune-based Therapies for Metastatic or Unresectable Melanoma

AIMS

New targeted drugs and immune therapies reported since 2010 for metastatic or unresectable melanoma (MM) have shown improved survival in randomised trials. We studied the uptake of these new drugs and their impact on population-based survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study of all patients treated for MM in Ontario 2007-2015. Provincial administrative sources covering the whole population identified palliative systemic therapy, radiotherapy and metastasis surgery. Temporal trends in utilisation and survival were investigated, as was survival of treatments predefined as 'new drugs' (BRAF or MEK inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies).

RESULTS

We identified 2793 treated MM patients. First treatment was systemic therapy (46%), radiotherapy (41%) and metastasis surgery (14%). Systemic treatment increased from 53% of patients (2007) to 75% (2015). New drug treatments increased from <6% of known first-line regimens in 2007 to 82% in 2015. One and 2 year overall survival was 28% and 15%, respectively, for all MM 2007-2009, rising to 46% and 35% for 2014-2015 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.63, P < 0.0001). Survival gains were observed primarily among those cases initially treated with systemic therapy, which became dominated by the use of new drugs over the study period (2 year overall survival 16% 2007-2009 versus 44% 2014-2015; adjusted hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.56, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilisation of new targeted drugs and immune therapies for MM has increased considerably in routine practice 2007-2015. Consistent with the results of clinical trials, adoption was associated with substantial increases in survival of patients in the general population.

Combined Carboplatin and Cytosine Arabinoside in Metastatic Melanoma Refractory to Dacarbazine

This is a preliminary report on the efficacy and toxicity of the combination chemotherapy regimen with carboplatin and cytosine arabinoside in dacarbazine-resistant metastatic melanoma. Patients were considered eligible in the presence of measurable disease sites, an ECOG performance status of 2 or less, a life expectancy of at least 2 months, and prior dacarbazine treatment. The planned schedule consisted of cytosine arabinoside (150 mg/m2 intravenously plus 50 mg subcutaneously), followed by a rapid infusion of carboplatin (350 mg/m2 on day 1). Courses were administred every 3 weeks according to hematologic recovery. Twenty-one consecutive patients were evaluable for activity and toxicity, the response rate was 19% (95% confidence interval, 5-42%). There was no complete remission. Toxicity was tolerable being myelosuppression the main side effect. In conclusion, the combination of carboplatin and cytosine arabinoside has limited activity as a salvage treatment in melanoma patients failing on dacarbazine chemotherapy. Moreover, the regimen is well tolerated and easy to administer in an outpatient setting.

Preliminary Experience with High-Dose Cisplatin, Reduced Glutathione and Natural Interferon-α in Dacarbazine-Resistant Malignant Melanoma

Aims and background

The incidence of malignant melanoma is rapidly increasing in many countries, and when this disease has reached advanced stages, standard therapies have little impact. Dacarbazine (DTIC) is the most effective chemotherapeutic agent with an overall response rate of 20-25%, but durable responses are uncommon. Interesting results with the use of cisplatin (CDDP) have been reported in DTIC-resistant melanoma. Moreover, malignant melanoma is an immunogenic tumor and a potential target for biological response modifier (BRM) therapies. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a chemo-immunotherapeutic regimen including high-dose CDDP combined with glutathione (GSH) to limit platinum-related toxicity, and natural interferon-α (IFN-α) in patients with DTIC-resistant metastatic melanoma.

Methods

The treatment schedule included GSH 1,500 mg/m2 i.v. and CDDP 40 mg/m2 i.v. for 4 consecutive days every 3 weeks, with a maximum of 6 courses, and IFN-α 3 MIU i.m. 3 times a week, continuative for a maximum of 12 months.

Results

Twelve patients were enrolled in this phase II trial. Accrual was stopped due to treatment-related toxicity. Ten patients were evaluable for response; there were 2 partial responses, lasting 5+ and 9+ months, respectively, and 2 cases of stable disease, lasting 3+ and 8+ months. None of these patients completed the therapeutic program due to treatment-related side effects.

Conclusions

This regimen seems to be only partially active in DTIC-resistant metastatic melanoma. Hematologic and non-hema-tologic (nausea and vomiting, peripheral neurotoxicity, and asthenia) side effects are significant and GSH is not effective in limiting CDDP-related neurotoxicity in pretreated patients. Therefore, there is no indication to employ this regimen as second-line treatment in metastatic melanoma and these disappointing results highlight the urgent need for new therapeutic approaches.

A Feasibility Study using Polychemotherapy (Cisplatin + Vindesine + Dacarbazine) plus Interferon-Alpha or Monochemotherapy with Dacarbazine plus Interferon-Alpha in Metastatic Melanoma

Aims and Background

This trial evaluated the feasibility and tol-erability of an immunochemotherapeutic approach that uses cisplatin, vindesine, and dacarbazine (DTIC), or only DTIC, in combination with interferon alpha-2a (IFN-a), in patients with metastatic melanoma, considering the significant toxicity of several different regimens used up to now.

Methods

Between May 1995 and September 1997, 51 melanoma patients (50 of whom were assessable) entered a multicentric trial and were randomized to receive cisplatin (30 mg/m2 daily for 3 days) + vindesine (2.5 mg/m2 only day 1) + DTIC (250 mg/m2 daily for 3 consecutive days) + IFN-α (3 MIU im 3x/wk continuously) (CVD arm) versus DTIC (800 mg/m2 day 1) + IFN-α (3 MIU im 3x/wk continuously) (DTIC arm). The chemotherapy was recycled every 21 days. Patient reevaluation was performed every two cycles, and the treatment was continued in case of objective response or stabilization of disease.

Results

We observed 3 complete responses, 2 partial responses and 5 stable diseases in the CVD arm, and 2 partial responses and 4 stabilizations of disease in the DTIC arm.

Conclusions

We conclude that these chemotherapeutic regimens are well tolerated regimens with modest toxicity. Future trials will be conducted associating the CVD regimen with biological response modifiers (IFN, IL-2) in order to improve the results.

WITHDRAWN: Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Systemic therapies for metastatic cutaneous melanoma, the most aggressive of all skin cancers, remain disappointing. Few lasting remissions are achieved and the therapeutic aim remains one of palliation.Many agents are used alone or in combination with varying degrees of toxicity and cost. It is unclear whether evidence exists to support these complex regimens over best supportive care / placebo.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits from the use of systemic therapies in metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to best supportive care/placebo, and to establish whether a 'standard' therapy exists which is superior to other treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

Randomised controlled trials were identified from the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CCTR/CENTRAL databases. References, conference proceedings, and Science Citation Index/Scisearch were also used to locate trials. Cancer registries and trialists were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults with histologically proven metastatic cutaneous melanoma in which systemic anti-cancer therapy was compared with placebo or supportive care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. Data extraction forms were used for studies which appeared to meet the selection criteria and, where appropriate, full text articles were retrieved and reviewed independently.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials were found comparing a systemic therapy with placebo or best supportive care in metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials to show superiority of systemic therapy over best supportive care / placebo in the treatment of malignant cutaneous melanoma.Given that patients with metastatic melanoma frequently receive systemic therapy, it is our pragmatic view that a future systematic review could compare any systemic treatment, or combination of treatments, to single agent dacarbazine.

WITHDRAWN: Chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy for metastatic malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Malignant melanoma, one of the most aggressive of all skin cancers, is increasing in incidence throughout the world. Surgery remains the cornerstone of curative treatment in earlier stages. Metastatic disease is incurable in most affected people, because melanoma does not respond to most systemic treatments. A number of novel approaches are under evaluation and have shown promising results, but they are usually associated with increased toxicity and cost. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy has been reported to improve treatment results, but it is still unclear whether evidence exists to support this choice, compared with chemotherapy alone. No language restrictions were imposed.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapy with chemotherapy and immunotherapy (chemoimmunotherapy) versus chemotherapy alone in people with metastatic malignant melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (14 February 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2003 to 30 January 2006 ), EMBASE (2003 to 20 July 2005) and LILACS (1982 to 20 February 2006). References, conference proceedings, and databases of ongoing trials were also used to locate trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that compared the use of chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy on people of any age, diagnosed with metastatic melanoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed each study to determine whether it met the pre-defined selection criteria, with differences being resolved through discussion with the review team. Two authors independently extracted the data from the articles using data extraction forms. Quality assessment included an evaluation of various components associated with biased estimates of treatment effect. Whenever possible, a meta-analysis was performed on the extracted data, in order to calculate a weighed treatment effect across trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 2625 participants. We found evidence of an increase of objective response rates in people treated with chemoimmunotherapy, in comparison with people treated with chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact of these increased response rates was not translated into a survival benefit. We found no difference in survival to support the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy in the systemic treatment of metastatic melanoma, with a hazard ratio of 0.89 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.11, P = 0.31). Additionally, we found increased hematological and non-hematological toxicities in people treated with chemoimmunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We failed to find any clear evidence that the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy increases survival of people with metastatic melanoma. Further use of combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy should only be done in the context of clinical trials.

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.

Sequential Combination Chemotherapy of Dacarbazine (DTIC) with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel for Patients with Metastatic Mucosal Melanoma of Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses

By the recent introduction of molecular targeting drugs against BRAF mutation and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the prognosis of patients with melanoma in advanced stage is now improving, but still in the minority. Mucosal melanoma lacks the BRAF mutations, and hence conventional chemotherapeutic regimens must be improved. We have conventionally used dacarbazine (DTIC) for patients with metastatic mucosal melanoma. However, the efficacy of DTIC in patients with metastatic mucosal melanoma has been limited. Therefore, we explored other possibilities to improve the prognosis of patients suffering from metastatic mucosal melanoma. In this communication, we present a retrospective analysis of the sequential combination chemotherapy of DTIC with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) for metastatic mucosal melanoma of nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. The objective response rate of seven patients is 14.3% by RECIST 1.1 and the overall survival (OS) is 12.5 months. These data indicate that the sequential combination chemotherapy of DTIC with CP could be an option for patients with metastatic mucosal melanoma of nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses who are currently ending into dismal prognosis.

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.

Beyond CTLA-4: novel immunotherapy strategies for metastatic melanoma

The treatment of metastatic melanoma is rapidly evolving. The discovery of BRAF and MEK inhibitors was an important milestone. Unfortunately, although response rates are high, disease progression is universal. Despite the success of IL-2 and adjuvant IFL-α2b, these two agents remained the only approved immunotherapy approaches. In recent years, the use of immunotherapy has drawn attention with the recognition of the mechanisms of tumor immune evasion. Blockade of these mechanisms may improve outcomes. However, the potential adverse events, the optimal use of these modalities, the high cost and the absence of predictive markers remain unmet challenges. Herein, we review the immunotherapy strategies in melanoma, either approved or under evaluation, and present the relevant data concerning their efficacy and safety.

Latest advances in chemotherapeutic, targeted, and immune approaches in the treatment of metastatic melanoma

Melanoma is the most dangerous form of skin cancer owing to its metastatic potential and is an important public health concern. The melanoma incidence has been increasing worldwide. Although potentially curable when diagnosed early, metastatic melanoma carries a poor prognosis. Until recently, systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma was ineffective, but the recent successes in the development of new therapies for metastatic melanoma, such as mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway inhibitors, anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway blocking antibodies, as well as combination strategies of cytotoxic chemotherapy and inhibitors of angiogenesis, have all yielded promising results, changing the continually evolving landscape of therapeutic options for patients with this disease. The aim of this review was to summarize the evolution of and recent advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive PubMed search between January 1, 1960, and February 1, 2014, using the search term melanoma or metastatic melanoma combined with terms such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, CTLA-4, PD-1, PD-L1, adoptive T cell, targeted therapy, MAPK, molecular biology, and survival.

Quantitative summaries of treatment effect estimates obtained with network meta-analysis of survival curves to inform decision-making

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, network meta-analysis (NMA) of published survival data are based on parametric survival curves as opposed to reported hazard ratios to avoid relying on the proportional hazards assumption. If a Bayesian framework is used for the NMA, rank probabilities associated with the alternative treatments can be obtained, which directly support decision-making. In the context of survival analysis multiple treatment effect measures are available to inform the rank probabilities.

METHODS

A fractional polynomial NMA of overall survival in advanced melanoma was performed as an illustrative example. Rank probabilities were calculated and presented for the following effect measures: 1) median survival; 2) expected survival; 3) mean survival at the follow-up time point of the trial with the shortest follow-up; 4) hazard or hazard ratio over time; 5) cumulative hazard or survival proportions over time; and 6) mean survival at subsequent time points. The advantages and disadvantages of the alternative measures were discussed.

RESULTS

Since hazard and survival estimates may vary over time for the compared interventions, calculations of rank probabilities for an NMA of survival curves may depend on the effect measure. With methods 1-3 rank probabilities do not vary over time, which are easier to understand and communicate than rank probabilities that vary over time as obtained with methods 4-6. However, rank probabilities based on methods 4-6 provide useful information regarding the relative treatment effects over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Different approaches to summarize results of a NMA of survival curves with rank probabilities have pros and cons. Rank probabilities of treatment effects over time provide a more transparent and informative approach to help guide decision-making than single rank probabilities based on collapsed measures, such as median survival or expected survival. Rank probabilities based on survival proportions are the most intuitive and straightforward to communicate, but alternatives based on the hazard function or mean survival over time may also be useful.

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

BACKGROUND

The effect of the addition of fotemustine and/or interferon (IFN) to standard therapy with dacarbazine alone in patients with advanced malignant melanoma was investigated in a multicenter, randomized 2x2 factorial design trial.

METHODS

A total of 260 patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: (A) fotemustine and dacarbazine repeated on 3-week cycle; (B) same treatment as (A) plus IFN-α2b three times per week; (C) dacarbazine alone repeated on 3-week cycle; (D) same treatment as (C) plus IFN-α2b three times per week. Two comparisons were planned to assess the efficacy of fotemustine (groups A+B vs. C+D) and IFN-α2b (groups A+C vs. B+D).

RESULTS

Addition of fotemustine did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) (p=0.28) or progression-free survival (PFS) (p=0.55); Hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.93 (95% CI 0.71-1.21). Similarly, addition of IFN-α2b did not improve OS (p=0.68) or PFS (p=0.65); HR for OS was 0.92 (95% CI 0.70-1.20). Overall response rate was not improved by the addition of either fotemustine (p=0.87) or IFN-α2b (p=0.57). The combination of all three drugs resulted in the highest occurrence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant improvement in outcomes were observed with the addition of either fotemustine or IFN-α2b to dacarbazine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01359956.

Meta-regression models to address heterogeneity and inconsistency in network meta-analysis of survival outcomes

BACKGROUND

Recently, network meta-analysis of survival data with a multidimensional treatment effect was introduced. With these models the hazard ratio is not assumed to be constant over time, thereby reducing the possibility of violating transitivity in indirect comparisons. However, bias is still present if there are systematic differences in treatment effect modifiers across comparisons.

METHODS

In this paper we present multidimensional network meta-analysis models for time-to-event data that are extended with covariates to explain heterogeneity and adjust for confounding bias in the synthesis of evidence networks of randomized controlled trials. The impact of a covariate on the treatment effect can be assumed to be treatment specific or constant for all treatments compared.

RESULTS

An illustrative example analysis is presented for a network of randomized controlled trials evaluating different interventions for advanced melanoma. Incorporating a covariate related to the study date resulted in different estimates for the hazard ratios over time than an analysis without this covariate, indicating the importance of adjusting for changes in contextual factors over time.

CONCLUSION

Adding treatment-by-covariate interactions to multidimensional network meta-analysis models for published survival curves can be worthwhile to explain systematic differences across comparisons, thereby reducing inconsistencies and bias. An additional advantage is that heterogeneity in treatment effects can be explored.

Cancer immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy consists of approaches that modify the host immune system, and/or the utilization of components of the immune system, as cancer treatment. During the past 25 years, 17 immunologic products have received regulatory approval based on anticancer activity as single agents and/or in combination with chemotherapy. These include the nonspecific immune stimulants BCG and levamisole; the cytokines interferon-α and interleukin-2; the monoclonal antibodies rituximab, ofatumumab, alemtuzumab, trastuzumab, bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab; the radiolabeled antibodies Y-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan and I-131 tositumomab; the immunotoxins denileukin diftitox and gemtuzumab ozogamicin; nonmyeloablative allogeneic transplants with donor lymphocyte infusions; and the anti-prostate cancer cell-based therapy sipuleucel-T. All but two of these products are still regularly used to treat various B- and T-cell malignancies, and numerous solid tumors, including breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, melanoma, kidney, glioblastoma, bladder, and head and neck. Positive randomized trials have recently been reported for idiotype vaccines in lymphoma and a peptide vaccine in melanoma. The anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody ipilumumab, which blocks regulatory T-cells, is expected to receive regulatory approval in the near future, based on a randomized trial in melanoma. As the fourth modality of cancer treatment, biotherapy/immunotherapy is an increasingly important component of the anticancer armamentarium.

Immunotherapy of melanoma: an update

The incidence of melanoma has been increasing worldwide. A relationship between melanoma and the immune system was established years ago. Modulating the immune system in the management of different stages of melanoma has been the focus of numerous large randomized trials worldwide. This article reviews the current status of immunotherapy for melanoma, with a focus on the recent promising results from using vaccines, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) antibodies, and adoptive cell therapy.

A phase I study of the safety and tolerability of olaparib (AZD2281, KU0059436) and dacarbazine in patients with advanced solid tumours

Background:

Poly adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) is essential in cellular processing of DNA damage via the base excision repair pathway (BER). The PARP inhibition can be directly cytotoxic to tumour cells and augments the anti-tumour effects of DNA-damaging agents. This study evaluated the optimally tolerated dose of olaparib (4-(3--4-fluorophenyl) methyl-1(2H)-one; AZD2281, KU0059436), a potent PARP inhibitor, with dacarbazine and assessed safety, toxicity, clinical pharmacokinetics and efficacy of combination treatment.

Patients and methods:

Patients with advanced cancer received olaparib (20–200 mg PO) on days 1–7 with dacarbazine (600–800 mg m⁻² IV) on day 1 (cycle 2, day 2) of a 21-day cycle. An expansion cohort of chemonaive melanoma patients was treated at an optimally tolerated dose. The BER enzyme, methylpurine-DNA glycosylase and its substrate 7-methylguanine were quantified in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

Results:

The optimal combination to proceed to phase II was defined as 100 mg bd olaparib with 600 mg m⁻² dacarbazine. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropaenia and thrombocytopaenia. There were two partial responses, both in patients with melanoma.

Conclusion:

This study defined a tolerable dose of olaparib in combination with dacarbazine, but there were no responses in chemonaive melanoma patients, demonstrating no clinical advantage over single-agent dacarbazine at these doses.

HSPPC-96 vaccine in metastatic melanoma patients: from the state of the art to a possible future

Heat-shock proteins are highly conserved, stress-induced proteins with chaperone function for trafficking and delivering peptides within the different compartments of the cell. Tumor-derived heat-shock protein-peptide complexes (HSPPCs) can be used for vaccination against malignancies. In particular, the HSPPC-96-based vaccine vitespen (formerly Oncophage) is the first autologous cancer vaccine made from individual patients' tumors that has shown encouraging results in clinical trials. In Phase I and II clinical trials, this vaccine has shown activity on different malignancies, such as gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic myelogenous leukemia. In Phase III clinical trials in melanoma and kidney cancer, it demonstrated an excellent safety profile with almost no toxicity. Heat-shock protein-based vaccines can be considered as a novel therapeutic approach with a promising role in cancer management.

Diagnosis and treatment of melanoma: European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is potentially the most dangerous form of skin tumour and causes 90% of skin cancer mortality. A unique collaboration of multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology and the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer was formed to make recommendations on CM diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. Diagnosis is made clinically and staging is based upon the AJCC system. CMs are excised with one to two centimetre safety margins. Sentinel lymph node dissection is routinely offered as a staging procedure in patients with tumours more than 1mm in thickness, although there is as yet no resultant survival benefit. Interferon-alpha treatment can be offered to patients with more than 1.5mm in thickness and stage II to III melanoma as an adjuvant therapy, as this treatment increases the relapse-free survival. The lack of a clear survival benefit and the presence of toxicity however limit its use in practice. In distant metastasis, all options of surgical therapy have to be considered thoroughly. In the absence of surgical options, systemic medical treatment is indicated, but with, to date, low response rates. Therapeutic decisions should be made by the melanoma team and the informed patient after full discussion of the options.

Immunotherapy of distant metastatic disease

Immunotherapy of metastatic melanoma consists of various approaches leading to specific or non-specific immunomodulation. The use of FDA-approved interleukin (IL)-2 alone, in combination with interferon alpha, and/or with various chemotherapeutic agents (biochemotherapy) is associated with significant toxicity and poor efficacy that does not improve overall survival of 96% of patients. Many studies with allogeneic and autologous vaccines have demonstrated no clinical benefit, and some randomised trials even showed a detrimental effect in the vaccine arm. The ongoing effort to develop melanoma vaccines based on dendritic cells and peptides is driven by advances in understanding antigen presentation and processing, and by new techniques of vaccine preparation, stabilisation and delivery. Several agents that have shown promising activity in metastatic melanoma including IL-21 and monoclonal antibodies targeting cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (anti-CTLA-4) or CD137 are discussed. Recent advances of intratumour gene transfer technologies and adoptive immunotherapy, which represents a promising although technically challenging direction, are also discussed.

The history and future of chemotherapy for melanoma

Melanoma is considered a chemotherapy-resistant cancer, but in reality there are several chemotherapy drugs with significant single-agent activity. Response rates to combination regimens are reproducibly higher than with standard dacarbazine, but of the randomized trials comparing combination regimens with dacarbazine, none were of sufficient size to detect a realistic effect on survival. Similarly, adjuvant chemotherapy has not had a realistic test in melanoma. Response to chemotherapy is associated reproducibly with better survival rates suggesting that regimens with higher response rates are needed. Recent observations suggest that combining antiangiogenic agents with either dacarbazine or temozolomide can double response rates. These combinations are worthy of further investigation and might serve as a foundation on which to build a combination regimen that improves overall survival in metastatic melanoma patients.

Novel therapeutics for the treatment of metastatic melanoma

Metastatic malignant melanoma is an incurable disease with a median survival of 8.5 months and a probability of surviving 5 years after the diagnosis of less than 5%. To date, no systemic therapy has meaningfully changed these survival end points. Currently, in the USA the FDA has approved three agents for the treatment of metastatic melanoma: hydroxyurea, dacarbazine and interleukin-2. None of these have demonstrated a meaningfully prolonged survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. Therefore, a number of innovative therapeutic strategies have been pursued to improve outcomes, including immune therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and angiogenesis inhibitors. Herein, we review some of the recent advances in novel therapeutic developments for the treatment of metastatic melanoma.

Oncophage: step to the future for vaccine therapy in melanoma

Heat-shock proteins (HSPs) are a group of proteins whose expression is increased when the cells are exposed to elevated temperatures or other stressful conditions. This increase in expression is transcriptionally regulated. The function of HSPs is similar in virtually all living organisms, from bacteria to humans. Their expression also occur under non-stressful conditions, simply 'monitoring' the cell's proteins, i.e., they carry old proteins to the cell's 'recycling bin' and they help newly synthesized proteins fold properly. These activities are part of a cell's own repair system. HSPs are molecular chaperones for protein molecules. They are usually cytoplasmic proteins and they perform functions in various intracellular processes. Tumour-derived HSP-peptide complexes (HSPPCs) can be used for vaccination against malignancies. In particular, HSPPC-96 complex, called Vitespen (formerly Oncophage) is a HSPs-based vaccine made from individual patients' tumours with a promising role in cancer management. This vaccine has been extensively studied in Phase I and II clinical trials, showing activity on different malignancies, including gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic myelogenous leukaemia. The vaccine has also been studied in Phase III clinical trials in melanoma and kidney cancer, showing an excellent safety profile with essentially no toxicity. Thus, HSP-based vaccines are a novel therapeutic approach with a promising role in cancer management.

Biochemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The incidence of malignant melanoma has increased in recent years. Current therapies for metastatic melanoma include chemotherapy and a variety of immunotherapeutic choices. With no established standard treatment option, the evaluation of biochemotherapy is warranted.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to locate randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and evidence-based practice guidelines published up to April 2007.

RESULTS

Nine eligible randomized controlled trials were identified, including six comparing chemotherapy alone to biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with interleukin-2 and interferon). Response rates were significantly higher with biochemotherapy in only two trials, although when data were pooled, biochemotherapy was superior to chemotherapy on response (relative risk, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.87; p<0.0001) but did not delay time to progression (Hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.01; p=0.06). Biochemotherapy was not associated with a statistically significant survival benefit in any of the individual trials or in a pooled analysis (Hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.17; p=0.64). Biochemotherapy is a toxic therapy, and patients are likely to experience serious hematologic, gastrointestinal, cutaneous, and constitutional toxicities, although when conducted in the correct setting, grade 3 and 4 effects appear to be manageable, and treatment-related death can be minimized.

CONCLUSION

The results of available studies are inconsistent with regard to benefit (response, time-to-progression, and survival) and show consistently high toxicity rates. Therefore, biochemotherapy is not recommended for the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma in adults.

Chemotherapy compared with biochemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic melanoma: a meta-analysis of 18 trials involving 2,621 patients

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of adding interferon-alpha (IFN) +/- interleukin-2 (IL-2) to chemotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS A published data meta-analysis of trials of biochemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma was undertaken. End points evaluated were rates of partial response (PR), complete response (CR) and overall (partial + complete) response (OR); response duration; progression-free survival; overall survival (OS); and toxicity. The only subgroup analysis performed was by type of immunotherapy, with trials divided according to whether IFN only or IFN and IL-2 were administered in the biochemotherapy arm.

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized trials were identified: 11 trials of chemotherapy +/- IFN and seven trials of chemotherapy +/- IFN and IL-2. More than 2,600 patients were entered onto the trials, with 555 responses and 2,039 deaths. There was a clear benefit for biochemotherapy for PR (odds ratio = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82; P = .0001), CR (odds ratio = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.73; P = .0003) and OR (odds ratio = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.72; P < .00001). For OR, these benefits were significant for both the IFN (odds ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.79; P = .0002) and IFN + IL-2 (odds ratio = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.77; P = .0001) subgroups. In contrast, there was no benefit overall in OS (odds ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.08; P = .9), but there was evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect between the individual trials (P = .006).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive summary of all the data currently available, and shows that although biochemotherapy clearly improves response rates, this does not appear to translate into a survival benefit.

CD69 on CD56+ NK cells and response to chemoimmunotherapy in metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

The few chemoimmunotherapy trials that together with dacarbazine (DTIC) and interferon-alpha 2a (IFNalpha), include retinoic acid (RA), did not include detailed immunological evaluation of functional and phenotypic natural killer (NK) cell characteristics, and have shown contradictory clinical results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Malignant melanoma (MM) patients undergoing phase II-randomized chemoimmunotherapy trials were treated with DTIC, IFNalpha (Hoffmann-La Roche) (group A, n = 31), and with DTIC, IFNalpha and 13-cis-RA (Isotretinoin, Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland) (group B, n = 29). Patients and 42 healthy controls were evaluated by FACS flow analyses for CD3/CD56/CD69 positive cells, NK cytotoxicity in fresh peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) and for interferon regulatory factor-1 mRNA expression by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction in treated PBL.

RESULTS

The addition of RA to a DTIC-IFN regime did not bring any therapeutical benefit in terms of response or survival. Immunological follow-up on days 1, 6 and 27 of each therapy cycle shows a significant increase in NK cell activity in both groups, only on day 6 of the first cycle, while CD69+CD56+ expression increased significantly on day 6 of each therapy cycle, in both groups. Evaluation of the dynamics of expression of IRF-1 of in vitro treated PBL, shows its strong and prompt up-regulation by IFNalpha and synergistic effect of IFNalpha and RA combination.

CONCLUSION

The dynamics of the increase in CD69 early activation antigen expression on CD56+ NK cells is systematic and serial with the increase being significantly higher on day six of the first cycle in group B patients with clinical response, compared to those without, indicating possible predictive value of CD69 expression for clinical response to chemoimmunotherapy.

Treatments for metastatic melanoma: synthesis of evidence from randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Advanced melanomas (non-resectable Stage-III/IV) are fatal, with few effective treatments. It remains unclear if other drugs offer improvements over the standard, dacarbazine.

PURPOSE

We quantified objective response rates (Complete+Partial response) of dacarbazine versus comparators for advanced cutaneous melanoma.

METHODS

We retrieved all head-to-head randomized controlled trials involving dacarbazine and other drugs/combinations. Two reviewers searched MEDLINE (1966-Jan 2006), EMBASE (1980-2006), CINAHL (1982-2006) and Cochrane library, then compared results. Differences were resolved through consensus. Rates were combined using random effects meta-analysis. chi2 tested heterogeneity; points from Jadad's method were assessed to examine study quality.

RESULTS

We found 48 studies having 111 active treatment arms [24 with dacarbazine monotherapy (n=1390), 75 with dacarbazine combinations (n=4962), and 12 with non-dacarbazine treatments (n=783)] treating 7135 patients. Overall, study quality was poor. Response to dacarbazine monotherapy ranged between 5.3% and 28.0% (average 15.3%), OR=1.31, CI(95%): 1.06-1.61; N=3356. Partial responses comprised 73% of successes. Only adding interferons improved response rates (OR=1.69, CI(95%): 1.07-2.68, N=778) but survival duration was not significantly longer (P=0.32), and trials with larger sample sizes found lower success rates. All other treatments alone or in combination were ineffective P>0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Dacarbazine generally produces poor outcomes. Adding other therapies offers minimal clinical advantages (possibly with interferons). In general, study quality was poor and sample sizes were small. This meta-analysis highlights the unmet need for effective treatment options for advanced melanoma.

Synthesis and antiproliferative activity of thiazolidine analogs for melanoma

We have previously described 2-aryl-thiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid amides as a novel class of antiproliferative agents for prostate cancer. Screening these compounds with melanoma cell lines revealed that several of them have potent antiproliferative activity and selectivity against melanoma. To further improve the potency and selectivity, we synthesized a new series of analogs and tested them in two melanoma cell lines and fibroblast cells (negative controls). Comparison of anticancer effects of these compounds with a standard chemotherapeutic agent, sorafenib, showed that they are very effective in killing melanoma cells with low micromolar to nanomolar antiproliferative activity and provide us a new lead for developing potential drugs for melanoma.

Complex Combination Biochemotherapy Regimen in Advanced Metastatic Melanoma in a Non-intensive Care Unit: Toxicity or Benefit?

BACKGROUND

There is currently no chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy regimen that has shown impact on survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. Different biochemotherapy protocols showed promise with high response rates, but again without significant impact on survival.

METHODS

We report the results of a retrospective analysis of a regimen consisting of dacarbazine, cisplatin, vindesine, interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha2b in 25 consecutively treated patients with regard to toxicity, efficacy and practicability. The treatment was performed on a regular dermatological ward.

RESULTS

Grade III and IV toxicities were mainly haematological, with few cases of infection because of neutropenia seen. Best overall responses were CR 2/25, PR 2/25 and SD 9/25. The median progression free interval was 4 months (range 0-19) for all patients and the median survival time was 12 months (range 2-26). From a safety and practical point of view, there was no draw-back on treating patients in a non-intensive care unit. The median survival time is in the range of the one reported for monochemotherapy regimen. While there are some responding patients, the responses are short lived and go in parallel with high toxicity and impaired performance status.

CONCLUSION

This complex and highly toxic chemoimmunotherapeutic regimen should not be considered as standard therapy in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma.

Chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy for metastatic malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Malignant melanoma, one of the most aggressive of all skin cancers, is increasing in incidence throughout the world. Surgery remains the cornerstone of curative treatment in earlier stages. Metastatic disease is incurable in most affected people, because melanoma does not respond to most systemic treatments. A number of novel approaches are under evaluation and have shown promising results, but they are usually associated with increased toxicity and cost. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy has been reported to improve treatment results, but it is still unclear whether evidence exists to support this choice, compared with chemotherapy alone. No language restrictions were imposed.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapy with chemotherapy and immunotherapy (chemoimmunotherapy) versus chemotherapy alone in people with metastatic malignant melanoma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (14 February 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2003 to 30 January 2006 ), EMBASE (2003 to 20 July 2005) and LILACS (1982 to 20 February 2006). References, conference proceedings, and databases of ongoing trials were also used to locate trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that compared the use of chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy on people of any age, diagnosed with metastatic melanoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed each study to determine whether it met the pre-defined selection criteria, with differences being resolved through discussion with the review team. Two authors independently extracted the data from the articles using data extraction forms. Quality assessment included an evaluation of various components associated with biased estimates of treatment effect. Whenever possible, a meta-analysis was performed on the extracted data, in order to calculate a weighed treatment effect across trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 2625 participants. We found evidence of an increase of objective response rates in people treated with chemoimmunotherapy, in comparison with people treated with chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact of these increased response rates was not translated into a survival benefit. We found no difference in survival to support the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy in the systemic treatment of metastatic melanoma, with a hazard ratio of 0.89 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.11, p=0.31). Additionally, we found increased hematological and non-hematological toxicities in people treated with chemoimmunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We failed to find any clear evidence that the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy increases survival of people with metastatic melanoma. Further use of combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy should only be done in the context of clinical trials.

Randomized Trials in Melanoma: An Update

No effective therapy for metastatic melanoma exists. Polychemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy have not shown survival benefits. Vaccines have shown little activity in stage IV disease. To advance the identification of effective agents, new drugs can and should be offered as first-line treatment. Efforts must be made to improve understanding of the biology of malignant melanoma. Too many phase III trials have been conducted with a poor understanding of the mechanism of action of the involved drugs.

Chemotherapy for metastatic melanoma

Despite the limited efficacy of systemic chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic melanoma, it remains the gold standard in the case of patients with a good performance status and no major comorbidities for whom radical surgery is unsuitable. Various drugs have been employed as monochemotherapy with response rates ranging from 0 to 20%. Many Phase III trials have compared the role of polychemotherapy with that of single-agent chemotherapy, or evaluated the impact of biological response modifiers alone or in combination with chemotherapeutic agents. However, the current scenario does not seem to be significantly different from the situation of 20 or 30 years ago. To date, no single drug, combination chemotherapy in addition to a hormonal or biotherapy compound, has demonstrated an overall survival benefit in a randomized clinical trial.

Multicenter phase III randomized trial of polychemotherapy (CVD regimen) versus the same chemotherapy (CT) plus subcutaneous interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha2b in metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

The addition of cytokines to chemotherapy (CT) has obtained encouraging but contradictory results in metastatic melanoma. In this phase III trial, we compared the effects of CT [cisplatin, vindesine and dacarbazine (CVD)] with those of concurrent biochemotherapy (bioCT) consisting of CVD plus interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha2b.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 151 untreated metastatic melanoma patients were randomized, 75 on arm A (cisplatin 30 mg/m2 on days 1-3, vindesine 2.5 mg/m2 on day 1 and dacarbazine 250 mg/m2 on days 1-3), and 76 on arm B (same CVD scheme plus interferon-alpha2b on days 1-5 and interleukin-2 on days 1-5 and 8-15, both administered subcutaneously), either recycled every 3 weeks. Response was assessed every two cycles.

RESULTS

Ten percent of the patients were alive at a median of 52 months from start of therapy. We observed a response rate (RR) of 21% on arm A versus 33% on arm B; three patients (4%) given bioCT had complete responses (CRs). Median time to progression (TTP) was identical; median overall survival (OS) time was 12 months on arm A and 11 months on arm B.

CONCLUSIONS

BioCT is not better than CT alone; the trend in favor of the bioCT in terms of RR did not translate into better TTP or OS. Therefore, bioCT cannot be recommended as standard first-line therapy for metastatic melanoma.

Metastatic melanoma: is biochemotherapy the future?

Current treatment options in metastatic melanoma are of limited efficacy. Achievement of durable responses with biological agents, and the possibility to complement the higher response rate of chemotherapy and combined chemotherapy by prolonged duration of responses, led to development of biochemotherapy. Although a clear improvement in response rate (40-60% OR) resulted in some studies of the combined modality, several phase III studies had mixed results on the duration of survival. Various timeframes between the administration of chemotherapy and biologics have been tested, ranging between concurrent biochemotherapy, 1 d (immediately sequential), and up to 3 wk (long sequence or alternating). An analysis of the trend of responses and survival versus the duration of the chemobiotherapy sequence showed that, as the timeframe between chemo and bio components increases, the overall survival, survival of complete responders, and survival of partial responders appear to increase, but the effect is only present for the chemo-bio, and not for the bio-chemo sequence. Because there is no current explanation for this observation, it appears possible that the interaction between components of biochemotherapy results in a double effect: an increase in the immediate response reflected in the OR, CR, PR on one side, and an increase in survival on the other side. An analysis of mechanisms involved in the response leads us hypothesize that macrophage activation, as measured by the neopterin levels, may correlate with the survival of patients undergoing biochemotherapy, while the generation of nitric oxide, acting synergistically with chemotherapy in producing tumor cell killing, may be reflected in the overall response rate seen with the biochemotherapy combinations.

Temozolomide in combination with interferon-alfa versus temozolomide alone in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma: a randomized, phase III, multicenter study from the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group

PURPOSE

Temozolomide (TMZ) has shown efficacy in metastatic melanoma equal to that of dacarbazine (DTIC), the standard chemotherapeutic agent for melanoma. As the combination with interferon-alfa (IFN-alpha) appears superior to single-agent DTIC regarding response rates, the purpose of this study was to compare TMZ alone and TMZ plus IFN-alpha in terms of objective response (OR), overall survival, and safety in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred ninety-four patients with untreated stage IV metastatic melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system) were randomly assigned to receive either oral TMZ alone (200 mg/m2/day; days 1 through 5 every 28 days) or in combination with subcutaneous IFN-alpha (5 MU/m2; days 1, 3, and 5 every week).

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-two patients were eligible for an intent-to-treat analysis, 271 patients were treated per protocol. In the TMZ + IFN-alpha arm, 33 (24.1%) of 137 patients responded to therapy (partial or complete remission) whereas in the monotherapy arm, in 18 (13.4%) of 134 patients, a response was evident. Thus, the response rate was significantly higher in the combination arm (P = .036). Median survival time was 8.4 months for patients treated with TMZ (95% CI, 7.07 to 9.27) and 9.7 months for those treated with the combination (95% CI, 8.26 to 11.18; P = .16). Dose modifications and interval prolongations due to hematologic toxicity were significantly more frequent in the TMZ + IFN-alpha arm (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In metastatic melanoma treatment with TMZ + IFN-alpha leads to a significantly superior OR rate compared to treatment with TMZ alone, which did not translate into prolonged survival in our study population.

Update: current management issues in malignant melanoma

The incidence of melanoma has increased continuously during the last decade. Surgery is the mainstay of therapy but, for patients with thick lesions or regional metastatic lymph nodes, there is a high risk of relapse. For this group of patients, there is no standard therapy or general agreement amongst oncologists. In this article, we review the current management of melanoma with regard to past completed adjuvant trials and open trials. Moreover, we discuss the role of chemotherapy in metastatic melanoma, in particular with attention to the use of fotemustine.