Neoadjuvant treatment for malignant and metastatic cutaneous melanoma

Preoperative therapy in melanoma: Evolving perspectives in clinical trials

We reviewed phase II and III trials beginning after 2010 studying preoperative therapy in melanoma (61 trials). Compared to standard adjuvant treatment, neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show improved outcomes with approximately 70-80% recurrence free survival at 2 years. Several biomarkers demonstrate predictive value for pathological response (higher PD-L1 expression) and survival (IFN-γ signatures, CD8 + cell density). A number of 'non-standard' treatment mechanisms are being studied in combination with ICI therapies such as TLR-9 agonists, and anti-LAG3 checkpoint inhibitors, which show promise for alternative therapy options in the neoadjuvant setting. Finally, trials for advanced unresectable melanomas show improved survival compared to definitive systemic treatment when upfront systemic therapies lead to resectability. To conclude, in the preoperative setting for melanoma, ICIs have potential to improve outcomes for patients, and will likely change the standard treatment approach for advanced resectable disease.

Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.

Effects of Carbon Nanomaterials and Aloe vera on Melanomas—Where Are We? Recent Updates

Melanoma is an aggressive skin cancer that affects approximately 140,000 people worldwide each year, with a high fatality rate. Available treatment modalities show limited efficacy in more severe cases. Hence, the search for new treatment modalities, including immunotherapies, for curing, mitigating, and/or preventing cancer is important and urgently needed. Carbon nanoparticles associated with some plant materials, such as Aloe vera, have shown appealing antineoplastic activity, derived mainly from the compounds aloin, aloe-emodin, barbaloin acemannan, and octapeptide, thus representing new possibilities as antitumor agents. This systematic review aims to arouse interest and present the possibilities of using Aloe vera combined with carbon-based nanomaterials as an antineoplastic agent in the treatment and prevention of melanoma. Limitations and advances in melanoma treatment using functionalized carbon nanomaterials are discussed here. Moreover, this review provides the basis for further studies designed to fully explore the potential of carbon nanomaterials associated with Aloe vera in the treatment of various cancers, with a focus on melanoma.

Advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: real world data of patient profiles and treatment patterns

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most common types of cancer in the Caucasian population, with an increasing incidence. cSCC is mostly a local invasive disease that can be treated surgically in the majority of the cases. However, in the case of advanced cSCC (acSCC), a multimodality approach also involving systemic therapies needs to be considered.

METHODS

One hundred and ninety-five patients diagnosed with acSCC (stages III and IV) treated in our centre between 2011 and 2018 were included. Patient and tumour characteristics along with treatment patterns were documented and analyzed. Descriptive analysis was performed and survival rates were estimated according to Kaplan-Meier and compared with the Log-rank test. Follow-up was defined as the time between diagnosis of advanced disease and last contact or death. All causes of death were considered as events.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 21 months [IQR = (10.0; 21.0)]. The median age at time of advanced disease diagnosis was 78 years [IQR = (72; 84)], with 40.5% of the patients in stage III and 59.5% in stage IV. One hundred and forty-five patients had resectable tumours. In this group the median overall survival (mOS) was 59 months (95% CI: 28.2-89.8), significantly higher than the mOS in patients with inoperable tumour [n = 50; mOS: 19 months (96% CI: 7-31, P <0.0001)]. Patients receiving immunotherapy (n = 20) showed a statistically significant better survival compared to those treated with other systemic therapies (n = 37; mOS not reached vs. mOS: 22 months (95% CI: 6.5-43.5), P = 0.034). For patients without systemic therapy, a combination of surgery and radiotherapy provided better outcomes compared to radiotherapy alone or best supportive care (P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Surgical complete resection should be the first therapeutic option for patients with acSCC. For patients with inoperable tumour, first-line immunotherapy should be preferably considered.