Randomized phase II trial of BCDT [carmustine (BCNU), cisplatin, dacarbazine (DTIC) and tamoxifen] with or without interferon alpha (IFN-alpha) and interleukin (IL-2) in patients with metastatic melanoma

Interacting Genetic Lesions of Melanoma in the Tumor Microenvironment: Defining a Viable Therapy

Melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer with an estimated 106,110 newly diagnosed cases in the United States of America in 2021 leading to an approximated 7180 melanoma-induced deaths. Cancer typically arises from an accumulation of somatic mutations and can be associated with mutagenic or carcinogenic exposure. A key characteristic of melanoma is the extensive somatic mutation rate of 16.8 mutations/Mb, which is largely attributed to UV exposure. Bearing the highest mutational load, many of them occur in key driver pathways, most commonly the BRAFV600E in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. This driver mutation is targeted clinically with FDA-approved therapies using small molecule inhibitors of oncogenic BRAFV600E and MEK, which has greatly expanded therapeutic intervention following a melanoma diagnosis. Up until 2011, therapeutic options for metastatic melanoma were limited, and treatment typically fell under the spectrum of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy.Attributed to the extensive mutation rate, as well as having the highest number of neoepitopes, melanoma is deemed to be extremely immunogenic. However, despite this highly immunogenic nature, melanoma is notorious for inducing an immunosuppressive microenvironment which can be relieved by checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The two molecules currently approved clinically are ipilimumab and nivolumab, which target the molecules CTLA-4 and PD-1, respectively.A plethora of immunomodulatory molecules exist, many with redundant functions. Additionally, these molecules are expressed not only by immune cells but also by tumor cells within the tumor microenvironment. Tumor profiling of these cell surface checkpoint molecules is necessary to optimize a clinical response. The presence of immunomodulatory molecules in melanoma, using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and validation of expression in two model systems, human melanoma tissues and patient-derived melanoma cells, revealed that the expression levels of B and T lymphocyte attenuator (BTLA), TIM1, and CD226, concurrently with the BRAFV600E mutation status, significantly dictated overall survival in melanoma patients. These molecules, along with herpesvirus entry mediator (HVEM) and CD160, two molecules that are a part of the HVEM/BTLA/CD160 axis, had a higher expression in human melanoma tissues when compared to normal skin melanocytes and have unique roles to play in T cell activation. New links are being uncovered between the expression of immunomodulatory molecules and the BRAFV600E genetic lesion in melanoma. Small molecule inhibitors of the MAPK pathway regulate the surface expression of this multifaceted molecule, making BTLA a promising target for immuno-oncology to be targeted in combination with small molecule inhibitors, potentially alleviating T regulatory cell activation and improving patient prognosis.

Pulmonary metastasectomy in the era of targeted therapy and immunotherapy

Metastatic melanoma is a fatal malignancy with a high mortality and morbidity. Since the early 1970s, available medical therapies were limited in improving survival. Surgery represented the best chance for a cure. However, surgery could only be offered to selected patients. The current landscape of treatment has radically evolved since the introduction of targeted and immunotherapies including BRAF and MEK inhibitors, and checkpoint blockers, like PD-1 and CTLA-4 antibodies. These new therapies have seen survival rates matching, and in some cases surpassing, that of surgery. Anti-PD1 and CTLA-4 combination treatments are associated with severe side effects and BRAF and MEK inhibitor combinations may trigger initial tumour responses but prolonged use have resulted in the development of resistant tumour clones and disease relapse. This review examines the role of pulmonary metastasectomy for lung metastasis from malignant melanoma in the current landscape of effective targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

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.

Natural killer cells are essential for the ability of BRAF inhibitors to control BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic melanoma

BRAF(V600E) is a major oncogenic mutation found in approximately 50% of human melanoma that confers constitutive activation of the MAPK pathway and increased melanoma growth. Inhibition of BRAF(V600E) by oncogene targeting therapy increases overall survival of patients with melanoma, but is unable to produce many durable responses. Adaptive drug resistance remains the main limitation to BRAF(V600E) inhibitor clinical efficacy and immune-based strategies could be useful to overcome disease relapse. Tumor microenvironment greatly differs between visceral metastasis and primary cutaneous melanoma, and the mechanisms involved in the antimetastatic efficacy of BRAF(V600E) inhibitors remain to be determined. To address this question, we developed a metastatic BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma cell line and demonstrated that the antimetastatic properties of BRAF inhibitor PLX4720 (a research analogue of vemurafenib) require host natural killer (NK) cells and perforin. Indeed, PLX4720 not only directly limited BRAF(V600E)-induced tumor cell proliferation, but also affected NK cell functions. We showed that PLX4720 increases the phosphorylation of ERK1/2, CD69 expression, and proliferation of mouse NK cells in vitro. NK cell frequencies were significantly enhanced by PLX4720 specifically in the lungs of mice with BRAF(V600E) lung metastases. Furthermore, PLX4720 also increased human NK cell pERK1/2, CD69 expression, and IFNγ release in the context of anti-NKp30 and IL2 stimulation. Overall, this study supports the idea that additional NK cell-based immunotherapy (by checkpoint blockade or agonists or cytokines) may combine well with BRAF(V600E) inhibitor therapy to promote more durable responses in melanoma.

Effects of surgery, general anesthesia, and perioperative epidural analgesia on the immune function of patients with non-small cell lung cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess preoperative and postoperative immune function in patients undergoing surgical resection of non-small cell lung cancer during general anesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia.

DESIGN

Observational single-center study.

SETTING

University-affiliated academic center.

PATIENTS

24 adult, ASA physical status 3 and 4 patients with stage 1, 2, or 3 non-small cell lung cancer. No study patient received preoperative chemotherapy or radiation.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent thoracotomy with general anesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia.

MEASUREMENTS

Bispectral index monitoring, sevoflurane requirements, and intraoperative transfusions were recorded. Total fentanyl consumption and pain (verbal numeric rating scale) were recorded 24 hours after surgery. Preoperative and 24-hour postoperative natural killer cell percentage and function and percentages of natural killer T cells, T helper cells (CD4+), and cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CD8+) were measured. Plasma concentrations of the TH1 cytokine interleukin-2 and interferon-gamma and the TH2 cytokines interleukin-4 were measured at the same time points.

RESULTS

The percentage (preoperative, 13.07 ± 9.81% vs postoperative, 9.6 ± 6.57%, P < 0.001) and function (preoperative, 31.61 ± 21.96%; postoperative, 13.61 ± 9.36%; P < 0.001) of natural killer cells was significantly decreased after surgery, but the percentage of natural killer T cells, T helper cells (CD4+), and cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CD8+) remained unchanged postoperatively; thus, the CD4/CD8 ratio remained unchanged. Postoperative plasma concentrations of the three cytokines were similar to preoperative levels; therefore, the TH1/TH2 ratio also remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Innate immunity is depressed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer after surgical resection, and immunity is not preserved by the use of postoperative epidural analgesia.

Should high-dose interleukin-2 still be the preferred treatment for patients with metastatic melanoma?

For more than 20 years interleukin-2 (IL2) was the preferred treatment for medically fit metastatic melanoma patients, but recently two new agents, ipilimumab and vemurafenib, were approved for stage IV disease. Single-institution data were used to determine the long-term survival rate for IL2-treated melanoma patients, and whether use of inpatient IL2 had declined recently. Between May 1987 and April 2010, 150 patients were hospitalized for high-dose, intravenous (i.v.) IL2. The average number of IL2 patients increased from 5.4 per year during 1987-1991 to 5.8 during 1992-1997 after regulatory approval of IL2, to 8.3 during 1998-2006 after a marketing indication in metastatic melanoma was granted, but dropped to 3.0 during 2007-2010. At the time of treatment, median age was 52 years; 27% were 60 years of age or older. At the time of analysis 122 patients were deceased. Median survival from the start date of IL2 treatment was 15.6 months, with a 20% 5-year survival. Among patients enrolled in clinical trials, there were as many nonresponders who survived 5 years as responders, which is consistent with a delayed immunotherapy benefit. In the absence of long-term survival data for these newer agents, IL2 probably should still be the preferred initial treatment for most patients with metastatic melanoma who are medically fit.

Metastatic melanoma - a review of current and future drugs

Background:

Melanoma is one of the most aggressive cancers, and it is estimated that 76,250 men and women will be diagnosed with melanoma of the skin in the USA in 2012. Over the last few decades many drugs have been developed but only in 2011 have new drugs demonstrated an impact on survival in metastatic melanoma.

Methods:

A systematic search of literature was conducted, and studies providing data on the effectiveness of current and/or future drugs used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma were selected for review. This review discusses the advantages and limitations of these agents, evaluating past, current and future clinical trials designed to overcome such limitations.

Results:

To date, there are four drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for melanoma (dacarbazine, interleukin-2, ipilimumab and vemurafenib). Despite efforts to develop new drugs, few of them have demonstrated any clinical benefits. Approved in 1975, dacarbazine remains the gold standard in chemotherapy, although ipilimumab and vemurafenib have raised many hopes in the last few years. Combining dacarbazine or other chemotherapy agents with new pharmacological agents may be a new way to achieve better clinical responses in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Discussion:

Advances in the molecular knowledge of melanoma have led to major improvements in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma, providing new targets and insights. However, heterogeneity amongst study populations, different approaches to treatment and the different melanoma types and localisations included in the trials makes their comparison difficult. New studies focusing on drugs developed in recent decades are warranted.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of overall survival comparing 3 mg/kg ipilimumab with alternative therapies in the management of pretreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients treated with 3 mg/kg ipilimumab versus alternative systemic therapies in pretreated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. From these trials, Kaplan-Meier survival curves for each intervention were digitized and combined by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different drug classes.

RESULTS

Of 38 trials identified, 15 formed one interlinked network by drug class to allow for an NMA. Ipilimumab, at a dose of 3 mg/kg, was associated with a greater mean OS time (18.8 months; 95% credible interval [CrI], 15.5-23.0 months) than single-agent chemotherapy (12.3 months; 95% CrI, 6.3-28.0 months), chemotherapy combinations (12.2 months; 95% CrI, 7.1-23.3 months), biochemotherapies (11.9 months; 95% CrI, 7.0-22.0 months), single-agent immunotherapy (11.1 months; 95% CrI, 8.5-16.2 months), and immunotherapy combinations (14.1 months; 95% CrI, 9.0-23.8 months).

CONCLUSION

Results of this NMA were in line with previous findings and suggest that OS with ipilimumab is expected to be greater than with alternative systemic therapies, alone or in combination, for the management of pretreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Update on therapy for melanoma: opportunities for patient selection and overcoming tumor resistance

The incidence of malignant melanoma is rising faster than any other malignancy. Although earlier stage patients can be cured with surgical resection with or without adjuvant therapy, a significant number of patients go on to develop disseminated disease. Currently, limited therapeutic options exist for patients with metastatic melanoma. Recent studies suggest that patient selection is feasible and may enable the restriction of treatment to those most likely to benefit. Additionally, several potential mechanisms of tumor resistance have been identified creating opportunities for circumventing them. This article will review current strategies for patient selection and overcoming therapeutic resistance. These strategies hold the promise of extending the clinical benefits of current therapies as well as facilitating the development of additional and more active treatments.

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.

Biochemotherapy with temozolomide, cisplatin, vinblastine, subcutaneous interleukin-2 and interferon-α in patients with metastatic melanoma

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of a biochemotherapy regimen, including low-dose subcutaneous interleukin-2 and temozolomide, in patients with metastatic melanoma. Treatment consisted of temozolomide (150 mg/m per day on days 1-5), cisplatin (20 mg/m per day intravenously on days 1-4), vinblastine (1.5 mg/m per day on days 1-4), interleukin-2 (4.5 MU/m per day subcutaneously on days 5-8) and interferon-alpha2b (5 MU subcutaneously on days 5-9, 11, 13, 15, every 28 days). Thirty-six patients were included. Patients with poor prognostic factors were not excluded. Seventeen patients (47%) had been treated previously in an adjuvant setting with interferon-alpha. Four patients (11%) had been treated previously with chemotherapy and six (17%) had been treated with other biochemotherapy regimens. The distribution by American Joint Committee on Cancer staging was as follows: M1a in two patients (6%), M1b in 11 patients (31%) and M1c in 23 patients (64%). At inclusion, seven patients (19.4%) had cerebral metastases that had previously been treated with whole brain radiotherapy. For thirty-four evaluable patients, seven (20.5%) achieved an objective response. Overall, metastatic disease was substantially decreased or temporarily stabilized in 11 patients (32.4%; 95% confidence interval, 17.4-50.5). Responses were observed for all locations. The central nervous system was the initial site of relapse in two responding patients. The median survival was 10 months. The main toxicities noted were haematological (grades 3-4): neutropenia (1.8%), thrombocytopenia (1.8%) and anaemia (1.2%). It can be concluded that this regimen is well tolerated and has a modest activity despite the poor prognosis of our patient population. The low haematological toxicity rate obtained suggests that higher doses could be tried.

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.

Dacarbazine, cisplatin, and interferon-alfa-2b with or without interleukin-2 in metastatic melanoma: a randomized phase III trial (18951) of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Melanoma Group

BACKGROUND

Based on phase II trial results, chemoimmunotherapy combinations have become the preferred treatment for patients with metastatic melanoma in many institutions. This study was performed to determine whether interleukin-2 (IL-2) as a component of chemoimmunotherapy influences survival of patients with metastatic melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with advanced metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive dacarbazine 250 mg/m2 and cisplatin 30 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3 combined with interferon-alfa-2b 10 x 10(6) U/m2 subcutaneously on days 1 through 5 without (arm A) or with (arm B) a high-dose intravenous decrescendo regimen of IL-2 on days 5 through 10 (18 x 10(6) U/m2/6 hours, 18 x 10(6) U/m2/12 hours, 18 x 10(6) U/m2/24 hours, and 4.5 x 10(6) U/m2 for 3 x 24 hours). Treatment cycles were repeated in the absence of disease progression every 28 days to a maximum of four cycles.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-three patients with advanced metastatic melanoma were accrued. The median survival was 9 months in both arms, with a 2-year survival rate of 12.9% and 17.6% in arms A and B, respectively (P = .32; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.11). There was also no statistically significant difference regarding progression-free survival (median, 3.0 v 3.9 months) and response rate (22.8% v 20.8%).

CONCLUSION

Despite its activity in melanoma as a single agent or in combination with interferon-alfa-2b, the chosen schedule of IL-2 added to the chemoimmunotherapy combination had no clinically relevant activity.

Biochemotherapy with low doses of subcutaneous interleukin-2 in patients with melanoma: results of a phase II trial

INTRODUCTION

Metastatic melanoma has an ominous prognosis. Bio-chemotherapy regimens can increase the response rate but with a high degree of toxicity due, mainly, to the use of high-dose intravenous interleukin-2.

OBJECTIVES

To test the feasibility and activity profile of a bio-chemotherapy regimen of low-dose subcutaneous interleukin-2.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Administration scheme: dacarbazine at 200 mg/m2/d on days 1-4, cisplatin at 20 mg/m2/d intravenous on days 1-4, vinblastine at 1.5 mg/m2/d on days 1-4, IL-2 at 4.5 MUI/m2/d subcutaneous on days 5-8, IFN-alpha at 5 MU subcutaneous on days 5-9, 11, 13, 15 of every 21-day cycle.

RESULTS

Objective response was obtained in 11 patients (39.3%; 95%CI: 21-59) including 4 with complete response (14.3%; 95%CI: 4-33). With an extended follow-up of 49 months and 60 months, respectively, 2 patients continue with complete response. The main toxicities were haematological: grade 3-4 neutropenia in 8.2% of cycles, thrombocytopenia in 1.2% and anaemia in 3.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The regimen is safe and has a good activity profile. The presence of long-term survivors, despite the use of lower doses and subcutaneous IL-2, is encouraging.

Management of in-transit metastases from cutaneous malignant melanoma

Background

In-transit metastases from cutaneous malignant melanoma (cutaneous or subcutaneous deposits between the primary melanoma and regional lymph nodes) represent late-stage disease, and their treatment should be tailored accordingly. This article reviews the pathology, clinical significance and treatment options for in-transit disease from melanoma.

Methods

An initial Medline search was undertaken using the keywords ‘melanoma and in-transit’ and ‘melanoma and non-nodal regional recurrence’. Additional original articles were obtained from citations in articles identified by the initial search.

Results and conclusion

In-transit metastases carry a poor prognosis. The method of treatment should be tailored to the extent of cutaneous disease. The first line of treatment remains complete excision with negative histopathological margins. There is no need for wide excision. Carbon dioxide laser therapy is valuable for multiple small cutaneous deposits. Isolated limb perfusion has a role for numerous or bulky advanced in-transit metastases in the limbs that are beyond the scope of simpler techniques. Systemic chemotherapy has response rates of about 25 per cent and is reserved for patients for whom surgery is no longer feasible.

Palliative therapy of disseminated malignant melanoma: a systematic review of 41 randomised clinical trials

We undertook a systematic review of 41 randomised studies in disseminated melanoma, identified by a comprehensive search. We aimed to investigate rates of response to various treatment modalities and the outcome for the patients. We analysed seven studies that compared polychemotherapy with single-agent dacarbazine, six that compared different chemotherapeutic schedules with each other, five on the addition of tamoxifen to a reference therapy, and six that included non-specific immunostimulators. In 17 studies, the addition of interferon alfa, interleukin 2, or both, to a reference therapy was investigated, including trials with biochemotherapy. Many trials had small sample sizes and did not report a power analysis; not all were analysed by intention to treat. Although some treatment regimens, especially polychemotherapeutic schedules, seem to increase response rates, none of the treatment schedules was proven to prolong overall survival. Patients with disseminated melanoma should be treated with well-tolerated drug regimens, such as single-agent treatments or in combination with interferon alfa. Systemic treatments should preferably be investigated in randomised trials so that the potential benefits of new treatment concepts can be thoroughly examined.

IL-2-mediated augmentation of NK-cell activity and activation antigen expression on NK- and T-cell subsets in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with interferon-alpha and DTIC

Considering that well-defined and comprehensive immunological monitoring is the basis for the evaluation of the obtained immunmodulatory effects, we evaluated NK-cell activity, the number of CD3+ CD4+, CD3+ CD8+ T cells and CD16+ CD56+ NK cells, as well as the expression of activation antigens, CD69, CD38 and HLA-DR on CD56+ NK cells, CD8+ and CD3+ T cells, simultaneously with IL-2 and TNF-alpha production, during chemoimmunotherapy with dacarbazine (DTIC) and interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha) in 39 patients with metastatic melanoma. In the first cycle of therapy, there was a significant rise in NK-cell activity, CD4+ T helper cell number, CD4/CD8 T-cell ratio, and the expression of activation antigens CD69 and CD38, on NK and T cells, respectively. However, in the following cycles there was a significant increase only in activation antigens without an increase in the percent or activity of NK cells. The early, but transient, immunopotentiation, present only in the first cycle of combined DTIC and IFN-alpha therapy, suggests that, in spite of increased IL-2 level, associated with augmented NK-cell activity, this therapy has a limited effect probably owing to the adverse effect of persistently high level of TNF-alpha in metastatic disease.

Does adjuvant systemic therapy with interferon-alpha for stage II-III melanoma prolong survival?

The experience with interferon-alpha in malignant melanoma resembles, to some degree, the experience with various kinds of adjuvant immunotherapeutic agents where 25 years of phase III trials of adjuvant therapy in stage II-IIII melanoma have not defined a standard therapy. Most trials failed to demonstrate an impact on disease-free survival and overall survival. Currently, data from 12 randomized interferon-alpha trials are available. The data in almost 3000 patients, approximately 50% of the total patient population, is immature and thus, inconclusive. Mature trials show that interferon-alpha significantly prolongs disease-free survival, but does not prolong overall survival, across different dose levels. Ultra-low-dose (1 MIU flat dose), interferon-alpha failed to even have an effect on disease-free survival. Although two trials with high-dose (10-20 MIU/m(2)) interferon-alpha have shown an impact on overall survival, these data are inconclusive since this impact was transient, inconsistent in subsequent trials, and the data was somewhat immature. Inconsistent results have also been observed for intermediate- (5-10 MIU flat dose) and low-dose (3 MIU flat dose) interferon-alpha regimens. The results, overall, suggest that these doses do have an impact on disease-free survival, but not on overall survival. Preliminary results regarding distant metastasis-free survival (the closest surrogate for overall survival available) of the very large European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18952 trial suggests that there is a benefit with long-term low intermediate doses and support the anti-angiogenic concept of long-term maintenance treatment with interferon-alpha. The efficacy of short-term high-dose and long-term intermediate-dose treatment is being investigated in new trials. For now the role of interferon-alpha still remains to be determined and its use should be restricted to the setting of clinical trials.

Treosulfan in the treatment of metastatic melanoma: from chemosensitivity testing to clinical trials

The therapy of metastatic malignant melanoma is limited by poor responses and short overall survival. Thus it remains important to identify and test potential new drugs in this disease. To examine the effects of the bifunctional alkylating cytostatic treosulfan, an in vitro microplate ATP bioluminescence assay (ATP-TCA) was used. Five highly chemoresistant melanoma cell lines and melanoma cells freshly isolated from metastases surgically resected from stage IV melanoma patients (n = 10) were incubated with treosulfan. Three cell lines and eight of ten tested tumor cells isolated from melanoma metastases showed tumor growth inhibition after incubation with treosulfan. Therefore, 14 patients with rapidly progressing stage IV malignant melanoma who were pretreated with at least one standard chemotherapy regimen received treosulfan. In this population of patients with highly refractory advanced melanoma one complete remission (7.1%), two partial remissions (14.3%), and three cases of stable disease (21.4%) were observed. Median time to progression and median overall survival for all patients measured from the beginning of treosulfan treatment were 5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98-2.57 months] and 9 months (95% CI 3.92-8.69 months), respectively. On the basis of these data a multicenter phase II trial was initiated. A total of 31 patients with stage IV melanoma were included and treated second-line with 8 g/m2 i.v. treosulfan. From this group 26 patients were evaluable. No objective remission (CR, PR) was observed, 5 of 26 patients (19%) had stable disease, and 21 patients had progressive disease. Median overall survival was 6.5 months (95% CI 3.1-10 months). Toxicity of treosulfan was moderate. Patients with treosulfan-sensitive melanoma metastases showed better response rates and prolonged survival compared with patients who were not tested before treosulfan treatment. We therefore suggest further studies with first-line treosulfane alone or in combination with gemcitabine or cytosine arabinoside together with pretherapeutic chemosensitivity testing that may help to select patients who might benefit from specific chemotherapy.

Does continuous-infusion interleukin-2 increase survival in metastatic melanoma?

Pharmacy logbooks and clinical trial records were used to identify all 60 patients with metastatic melanoma who were treated as inpatients with intermediate-dose, continuous-infusion interleukin-2 (IL-2) in Hoag Hospital during 1987 to 1998. The hospital tumor registry was used to identify contemporary controls who had not received inpatient IL-2, matched for having distant metastatic melanoma, and by year and stage at original diagnosis, gender, and age. The mean time from original diagnosis to the documentation of distant metastatic disease was similar in both groups, 24 to 26 months. From the date of starting IL-2 therapy, patients had a median survival of 8.8 months, 38% 1-year survival, and 20% 5-year survival, with 8 patients alive beyond 5 years. However, there was no difference in survival from the first date of distant metastatic disease (median 25.8 months for IL-2 versus 31.5 months for controls, with survival rates 5 years after metastatic disease of 26% versus 31%). There was also no difference in overall survival from the date of original diagnosis (60.1 months for the IL-2 group versus 86.3 months for controls, with 5-year survival rates of 51% versus 64%, and 10-year survival rates of 29% versus 33%). This single-institution study failed to establish a survival advantage for patients with metastatic melanoma who received intermediate-dose, continuous-infusion IL-2 administered in the inpatient setting, compared to contemporary, matched-control patients who never received inpatient IL-2 therapy. However, the 5-year survival rates after a diagnosis of distant metastatic disease were a surprisingly high 26% to 31% in both groups. In the absence of a control group, the survival impact of IL-2 has probably been overestimated from single-arm phase II and III trials.

Second-line chemotherapy of metastatic malignant melanoma with intravenous treosulfan: a phase II multicentre trial

The purpose of this multicentre phase II trial was to evaluate time to progression, survival time, rate of objective tumour response and toxicity of second-line intravenous treosulfan chemotherapy in stage IV melanoma patients. Thirty-one patients with measurable stage IV malignant melanoma and prior chemotherapy with a dacarbazine-containing regimen were included. Of this group, 26 patients were evaluable. All patients received treosulfan (8 g/m intravenously on day 1; cycle repeated every 28 days up to six courses). Patients were evaluated for tumour response, survival time and toxicity. No objective responses (complete or partial) were observed. Five patients (19%) showed no change and 21 had progressive disease after treosulfan treatment. Four patients experienced a minor or mixed response. The median time to progression was 1.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-2.1 months) and the median overall survival was 6.5 months (95% CI 3.1-10 months). The 1 year survival rate was 33.9% (95% CI 15.4-52.3%). Leukocytopenia and thrombocytopenia (Common Toxicity Criteria grades 3 and 4) occurred in 15% and 18% of cases, respectively. The non-haematological toxicity of this outpatient regimen was mild. In conclusion, intravenous treosulfan treatment does not induce objective response rates when used as a second-line treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma.

Biochemotherapy for advanced melanoma

The combination of cisplatin-based chemotherapy with interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha, referred to as biochemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy, has shown promising antitumor activity in patients with metastatic melanoma. Phase II studies have reported overall response rates ranging from 40 to 60%, with durable complete remissions in approximately 10% of the patients. Although the results of the phase II single institutional studies were encouraging, phase III studies have not shown consistent results. Many factors may explain this finding including small number of patients, lack of a proper phase II study to define the antitumor activity of a given biochemotherapy regimen, and principally lack of a multicenter phase II study to better define the response rate as well as to gain experience with an IL-2-based regimen in the community setting prior to conducting a phase III trial. Large randomized studies are ongoing and should better clarify the long-term impact of biochemotherapy on survival in patients with advanced melanoma.

Biochemotherapy for advanced melanoma

The outcome of chemotherapy for patients with stage IV melanoma is unsatisfactory, since durable responses are rarely achieved. More experimental treatments, such as vaccine approaches, antibody treatments, and gene therapy are being developed and are of high scientific interest; however, their efficacy in advanced melanoma patients has so far been very limited. Based on the observation of a small proportion of long-term responses, the use of biotherapy or biochemotherapy is currently preferred in many institutions as first-line treatment in stage IV melanoma. Various interleukin-2 (IL-2) dosing schedules and combinations with interferon alpha (IFN-alpha) have been tested in patients with advanced melanoma during the past decade. The response rates reported with IL-2 as a single agent or in combination with IFN-alpha varies from 10% to 41%, with a small, but remarkable proportion of durable responses. Subsequently, biochemotherapy regimens combining IL-2, IFN-alpha, and chemotherapy have been evaluated in phase II trials, which have suggested improved response rates. Recent randomized trials have investigated the role of biochemotherapy as compared to biotherapy alone or as compared to chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma. So far, none of the approaches has been proven to confer a survival benefit and thus the uniform desire is to include as many patients as possible in controlled clinical trials.

Systemic chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic melanoma

The role of systemic chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma remains of questionable benefit. Despite encouraging phase II data from multiple institutions that suggested an improved overall response rate for patients treated with the Dartmouth regimen, recently completed phase III trials have failed to demonstrate a significant benefit in survival. Of concern is the fact that there have been relatively few new chemotherapeutic agents in the past several years that have demonstrated any activity in this disease. More recently there has been a shift away from combination chemotherapy to biochemotherapy. However, this approach has yet to be clearly defined as superior. The basis for optimism in the future in this field resides in the realm of molecular oncology. As mechanisms of resistance are identified, new molecules such as antisense oligonucleotides may provide the basis for increasing the sensitivity of melanoma to chemotherapeutic and/or immunotherapeutic treatments.

Prognostic factors for survival and factors associated with long-term remission in patients with advanced melanoma receiving cytokine-based treatments: second analysis of a randomised EORTC Melanoma Group trial comparing interferon-alpha2a (IFNalpha) and interleukin 2 (IL-2) with or without cisplatin

The aim of this study was to define prognostic factors for survival, and especially for long-term survival in a mature data-set of patients with stage IV melanoma treated within a randomised trial of cytokine-based protocols. Long-term follow-up data on patients enrolled into a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial comparing interferon-alpha (IFNalpha) plus interleukin-2 (IL-2) with or without cisplatin were collected. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to define prognostic factors for survival. The characteristics of patients alive at 2 and 5 years after randomisation were compared with the entire cohort using the chi(2) test. The minimum potential follow-up of the 131 evaluable patients was 5 years. 18 patients (14%) were alive 2 years after randomisation, and 11 (8%) 5 years after randomisation. Pretreatment performance status (PS), serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and tumour mass were significant predictors for survival, whereas site of metastases and number of sites were non-significant. PS and LDH were the only independent prognostic factors. All except 1 patient alive at 2 and 5 years had a pretreatment PS of 100%, and only three long-term survivors had elevated pretreatment LDH. There was no association between the site of metastases and long-term survival. Response to treatment was a major predictor for long-term survival, whereas addition of cisplatin did not impact upon overall survival probability or on long-term survival. The probability of long-term survival in stage IV melanoma patients after IL-2-based treatments is governed by pretreatment PS, serum LDH and response to treatment. Site of metastases, the basis for the M-subcategories of the new AJCC staging system, was not informative in this study.

European approach to the treatment of malignant melanoma

The European approach to the treatment of each stage of malignant melanoma can be characterized as cautious, avoiding unwarranted mutilation or toxicity, because phase III trials have demonstrated that an aggressive approach in surgical management, adjuvant therapy, and treatment of stage IV disease has met with little success. Phase III trials have demonstrated that wide margins, elective lymph node dissections, and prophylactic isolated limb perfusions bring no survival benefit. Primary melanoma is excised with a margin of 1 cm to maximally 2 cm and primary closure as a rule. There is no standard adjuvant therapy. High-dose interferon treatment is practiced only sporadically in Europe because its high toxicity profile and an unclear long-term impact on survival are not popular. Long-term nontoxic lower-dose interferon regimens and vaccines are currently being explored. Phase III trials have shown that highly toxic polychemotherapy or biochemotherapy has not produced a survival benefit over simple treatment with dacarbazide alone. In Europe biochemotherapy is being abandoned and various less toxic or nontoxic approaches with vaccines and antiangiogenic agents are under study.

Comparison of the efficacy of two different dosage dacarbazine-based regimens and two regimens without dacarbazine in metastatic melanoma: a single-centre randomized four-arm study

The aim of this randomized four-arm phase III study was to evaluate whether there is a difference in activity between regimens containing dacarbazine and regimens without dacarbazine in metastatic melanoma, whether there is a dose-effect relationship for dacarbazine, and whether non-dacarbazine-containing aggressive regimens are in any way superior to non-aggressive ones. A total of 219 patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma were included in this study; 196 of them were evaluable for activity. The patients were randomized into four treatment arms: arm A (standard dose dacarbazine arm), vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 on day 1, carmustine (BCNU) 60 mg/m2 on day 1, and dacarbazine 300 mg/m2 per 24 h on days 2-5; arm B (high-dose dacarbazine arm), vincristine and BCNU as in arm A and dacarbazine 600 mg/m2 per 24 h on days 2-5; arm C ('aggressive' regimen without dacarbazine), vindesine 3 mg/m2 on day 1, bleomycin 7 mg/m2 per 24 h on days 1-4, and cisplatin 30 mg/m2 per 24 h on days 5-8; arm D ('non-aggressive' regimen without dacarbazine), BCNU 100 mg/m2 on day 1 and procarbazine 90 mg/m2 per 24 h on days 1-10. The four arms were well balanced with regard to patient- and disease-related characteristics. On an intend-to-treat basis, the response rate was 11 out of 49 (22%) in arm A, nine out of 47 (19%) in arm B, 16 out of 63 (25%) in arm C and nine out of 60 (15%) in arm D. There was a large overlap between the 95% confidence intervals and no significant differences in the response rates between the four arms. Median survival in the four treatment arms was 4, 5, 6 and 4 months, respectively, again with no significant differences. Median survival for responders (8, 11, 10 and 13 months, respectively) in all four arms was significantly longer than in non-responders (4, 3, 5 and 4 months, respectively). Arms A, B and C were significantly more toxic compared with arm D, which was for all practical purposes devoid of toxicities. The efficacy of all four regimens thus appeared comparable both in terms of response rate and survival. Responders in all four arms achieved a survival benefit. There does not seem to be a dose-effect relationship for dacarbazine in metastatic melanoma. Chemotherapy from arm D, might be well suited for 'fragile' or elderly patients due to the lack of toxicity.

Combination chemotherapy with or without s.c. IL-2 and IFN-alpha: results of a prospectively randomized trial of the Cooperative Advanced Malignant Melanoma Chemoimmunotherapy Group (ACIMM)

The purpose of this randomized trial was to evaluate the efficacy of combination chemoimmunotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone. A total of 124 patients were randomized to receive intravenous cisplatin (35 mg m(-2), days 1-3), carmustine (150 mg m(-2), day 1, cycles 1 and 3 only), dacarbacine (220 mg m(-2), days 1-3) and oral tamoxifen (20 mg m(-2), daily) in combination with (n=64) or without (n=60) sequential subcutaneous IL-2 and IFN-alpha. In those patients who received sequential immunotherapy, each cycle of chemotherapy was followed by outpatient s.c. IL-2 (10 x 10(6) IU m(-2), days 3-5, week 4; 5 x 10(6) IU m(-2), days 1, 3, 5, week 5) and s.c. IFN-alpha (5 x 10(6) IU m(-2), day 1, week 4; days 1, 3, 5, week 5). The overall response rate of patients treated with the combination of chemotherapy and IL-2/IFN-alpha was 34.3% with seven complete responses (10.9%) and 15 partial responses (23.4%). In patients treated with chemotherapy, only, the overall response rate was 29.9% with eight complete responses (13.3%) and 10 partial responses (16.6%). There was no significant difference in median progression free survival (0 months vs 4 months) and in median overall survival (12 months vs 13 months) for combined chemoimmunotherapy and for chemotherapy, respectively.

Response rates of patients with metastatic melanoma to high-dose intravenous interleukin-2 after prior exposure to alpha-interferon or low-dose interleukin-2

We evaluated 567 patients with metastatic melanoma who were treated with high-dose intravenous interleukin-2 (IL-2) to determine whether prior treatment with either alpha-interferon or low-dose IL-2 altered the rates of response to subsequent high-dose IL-2. Of the 567 patients treated, 46 patients had received low-dose IL-2 before, and 78 had received alpha-interferon before. The response rate for patients who had received IL-2 before compared with IL-2 naïve patients was 15% versus 21% respectively (p = 0.39). The response rate for patients who had received alpha-interferon before compared with patients who had not was 13% versus 21% (p = 0.084). Therefore, prior low-dose IL-2 therapy does not appear to prevent a subsequent response to high-dose IL-2. There is a trend for patients who received alpha-interferon before to have a lower-response rate to subsequent high-dose IL-2, but the number of patients evaluated in this study is too small to definitively answer this question.

The role interferon-alpha in malignant melanoma remains to be defined

Interferon-alpha (IFNalpha) is a pleiotropic cytokine with various direct and indirect inflammatory response modulating activities. Some of these activities may have direct or indirect antitumour effects. For such a wide range of biological activities, the dose for optimal biological activity may differ greatly from the maximally tolerated dose as different effects are mediated by different concentrations of IFNalpha. Because of its immunomodulatory effects, it has been extensively studied in melanoma patients. Little antitumour activity has been demonstrated in metastatic stage IV melanoma, with overall response rates of 10-15%, which were not dose-related. Yet, IFNalpha has been widely studied in the adjuvant setting for stage II and III disease. Many trials have been underpowered, have used very heterogeneously mixed patient populations, a wide variety of doses and treatment schedules, and have suffered from early and unplanned analyses. Mature data are still pending in some 3000 patients of the overall approximately 6000 patients that participated in the adjuvant trials. A meta-analysis has demonstrated a similar impact on relapse-free survival across various dose ranges of IFNalpha, but no significant impact on overall survival (OS). In light of the lack of impact on OS and the considerable to serious dose-dependent toxicity of IFNalpha, we do not have a clearly dose- and schedule-defined role for IFNalpha in the adjuvant setting and have no evidence for a benefit of IFNalpha in stage IV melanoma. For the adjuvant setting, the main question: efficacy of very toxic high dose therapy versus efficacy of non-toxic long-term treatment will be answered by the mature data from the large US-Intergroup high-dose and EORTC intermediate-dose and long-term maintenance therapy trials.