Synergistic Effect of TVEC and Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Advanced Melanoma

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) is a genetically modified herpes simplex virus (HSV-1) that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for intralesional treatment of melanoma. Recent reports have suggested that radiation treatment (RT) given in conjunction with TVEC, may provide synergistic immune enhancement at the site, and possibly systemically. However, the studies on combining RT with TVEC remain limited. Our study compares melanoma patients (pts) who received TVEC and RT in the same region of the body with pts whose RT field did not include the site of TVEC injection. We hypothesized that RT and TVEC to the same site would induce a more robust local tumor response, and possibly a systemic response, with improvement in clinical outcomes over those pts who had treatments in different regions.

MATERIALS/METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 20 melanoma pts from a single cancer center who were treated with TVEC and RT between January 2015 and September 2022. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to distant metastasis (DM), and time to locoregional recurrence (LRR) were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the corresponding log-rank test. Skin toxicity was also tabulated.

RESULTS

Fourteen pts (stage III [71.4%]; stage IV [28.6%]) received TVEC and RT in the same region (left leg [5], right leg [5], back [1], left arm [1], and right arm [1], and scalp [1]), and six (stage III [66.7%]; stage IV [33.3%]) received treatments in separate regions. The overall median follow-up was 10.5 months (mos) (range 1.0 - 58.7 mos). The OS of pts who had TVEC and RT in the same region was 19.0 mos (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1 - not reached [NR] mos), compared to 18.5 mos for those receiving RT in a different region (95% CI, 1.0 - NR mos) (p = 0.366). PFS with TVEC and RT in the same and different regions were 6.4 mos (95% CI, 2.4 - NR mos) and 2.8 mos (95% CI, 0.7 - 4.4 mos) respectively (p = 0.005). DM was 13.8 mos (95% CI, 4.6 - NR mos) with TVEC and RT in the same field and 2.8 mos (95% CI, 0.7 - 4.4 mos) in different fields (p = 0.001). Lastly, LRR of pts who had TVEC and RT in the same region was 26.0 mos (95% CI, 6.4 - 26.0 mos) compared to 4.4 mos in different regions (95% CI, 0.7 - NR mos) (p = 0.115). No grade 3 or higher skin toxicities were documented among pts who had TVEC and RT in the same region.

CONCLUSION

Comparing pts who had TVEC and RT to different regions of the body, there was an association with improvements in PFS and DM when both modalities were delivered to the same region of the body. However, we did not find a significant difference in locoregional recurrence or OS. Given some promise with the combined approach and potential immune enhancement from RT, larger trials are needed to better understand the potential positive signal from our study.

Propensity score-matched comparison of oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

Selected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.