Temozolomide and cisplatin versus temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma: a randomized phase II study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group

MGMT in TMZ-based glioma therapy: Multifaceted insights and clinical trial perspectives

Temozolomide (TMZ) is the most preferred and approved chemotherapeutic drug for either first- or second-line chemotherapy for glioma patients across the globe. In glioma patients, resistance to treatment with alkylating drugs like TMZ is known to be conferred by exalted levels of MGMT gene expression. On the contrary, epigenetic silencing through MGMT gene promoter methylation leading to subsequent reduction in MGMT transcription and protein expression, is predicted to have a response favoring TMZ treatment. Thus, MGMT protein level in cancer cells is a crucial determining factor in indicating and predicting the choice of alkylating agents in chemotherapy or choosing glioma patients directly for a second line of treatment. Thus, in-depth research is necessary to achieve insights into MGMT gene regulation that has recently enticed a fascinating interest in epigenetic, transcriptional, post-transcriptional, and post-translational levels. Furthermore, MGMT promoter methylation, stability of MGMT protein, and related subsequent adaptive responses are also important contributors to strategic developments in glioma therapy. With applications to its identification as a prognostic biomarker, thus predicting response to advanced glioma therapy, this review aims to concentrate on the mechanistic role and regulation of MGMT gene expression at epigenetic, transcriptional, post-transcriptional, and post-translational levels functioning under the control of multiple signaling dynamics.

A novel signature for predicting prognosis and immune landscape in cutaneous melanoma based on anoikis-related long non-coding RNAs

Anoikis is a unique form of apoptosis associated with vascularization and distant metastasis in cancer. Eliminating anoikis resistance in tumor cells could be a promising target for improving the prognosis of terminal cancer patients. However, current studies have not elaborated on the prognosis effect of anoikis-related long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in cutaneous melanoma. Pre-processed data, including RNA sequences and clinical information, were retrieved from TCGA and GTEx databases. After a series of statistical analyses, anoikis-related lncRNAs with prognostic significance were identified, and a unique risk signature was constructed. Risk scores were further analyzed in relation to the tumor microenvironment, tumor immune dysfunction and exclusion, immune checkpoint genes, and RNA methylation genes. The indicators were also used to predict the potentially sensitive anti-cancer drugs. An anoikis-related lncRNAs risk signature consisting of LINC01711, POLH-AS1, MIR205HG, and LINC02416 was successfully established in cutaneous melanoma. Overall survival and progression-free survival of patients were strongly linked with the risk score, independently of other clinical factors. The low-risk group exhibited a more beneficial immunological profile, was less affected by RNA methylation, and was more sensitive to the majority of anti-cancer drugs, all of which indicated a better prognostic outcome. The 4 hub lncRNAs may be fundamental to studying the mechanism of anoikis in cutaneous melanoma and provide personalized therapy for salvaging drug resistance.

Camrelizumab Plus Apatinib and Temozolomide as First-Line Treatment in Patients With Advanced Acral Melanoma: The CAP 03 Phase 2 Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Acral melanoma, known for low tumor mutation burden, responds poorly to immunotherapy. A standard therapy is still lacking.

Objective

To investigate the activity and safety of camrelizumab (an anti-programmed cell death-1 antibody) plus apatinib (a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor) and temozolomide as first-line treatment in patients with advanced acral melanoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this single-arm, single-center, phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial, patients with treatment-naive unresectable stage III or IV acral melanoma were enrolled at Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute between June 4, 2020, and August 24, 2021. The data cutoff date was April 10, 2022.

Interventions

Patients received 4-week cycles of intravenous camrelizumab, 200 mg, every 2 weeks; oral apatinib 250 mg, once daily; and intravenous temozolomide, 200 mg/m2, once daily on days 1 to 5 until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was objective response rate as assessed by investigators according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival, time to response, duration of response, disease control rate, overall survival, and safety.

Results

A total of 50 patients (32 men [64%]; median age, 57 years [IQR, 52-62 years]) were enrolled and received treatment. The median follow-up duration was 13.4 months (IQR, 9.6-16.2 months). The objective response rate was 64.0% (32 of 50; 95% CI, 49.2%-77.1%). The median time to response and duration of response were 2.7 months (IQR, 0.9-2.9 months) and 17.5 months (95% CI, 12.0 to not reached), respectively. The disease control rate was 88.0% (44 of 50; 95% CI, 75.7%-95.5%). The estimated median progression-free survival was 18.4 months (95% CI, 10.6 to not reached). The median overall survival was not reached. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were increased gamma-glutamyltransferase levels (15 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (11 [22%]), increased conjugated bilirubin levels (10 [20%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase levels (10 [20%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this nonrandomized clinical trial suggest that camrelizumab plus apatinib and temozolomide may be a potential first-line treatment option for patients with advanced acral melanoma, which warrants further validation in a randomized clinical trial.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04397770.

Oncolytic herpes simplex virus and temozolomide synergistically inhibit breast cancer cell tumorigenesis in vitro and in vivo

The oncolytic herpes simplex virus (HSV) G47Δ can selectively eliminate glioblastoma cells via viral replication and temozolomide (TMZ) has been clinically used to treat glioblastoma. However, the combined effect of G47Δ and TMZ on cancer cells, particularly on breast cancer cells, remains largely unknown. The objective of the present study was to investigate the role and underlying mechanism of G47Δ and TMZ, in combination, in breast cancer cell tumorigenesis. The human breast cancer cell lines SK-BR-3 and MDA-MB-468 were treated with G47Δ and TMZ individually or in combination. Cell viability, flow cytometry, reverse transcription quantitative-PCR and western blotting were performed to investigate the synergy between G47Δ and TMZ in regulating breast cancer cell behavior in vitro. The role of G47Δ and TMZ in suppressing tumorigenesis in vivo was investigated in a xenograft mouse model. G47Δ and TMZ served a synergistic role resulting in decreased breast cancer cell viability, induction of cell cycle arrest, promotion of tumor cell apoptosis and enhancement of DNA damage response in vitro. The combined administration of G47Δ and TMZ also effectively suppressed breast cancer cell-derived tumor growth in vivo, compared with the administration of G47Δ or TMZ alone. Synergy between G47Δ and TMZ was at least partially mediated via TMZ-induced acceleration of G47Δ replication, and such a synergy in breast cancer cells in vitro and in vivo provides novel insight into the future development of a therapeutic strategy against breast cancer.

Combination of chemotherapy and physical plasma elicits melanoma cell death via upregulation of SLC22A16

Malignant melanoma is an aggressive cancer that develops drug resistance leading to poor prognosis. Efficient delivery of chemotherapeutic drugs to the tumor tissue remains a major challenge in treatment regimens. Using murine (B16) and human (SK-MEL-28) melanoma cells, we investigated traditional cytotoxic agents in combination with cold physical plasma-derived oxidants. We report synergistic cytotoxicity of doxorubicin and epirubicin, and additive toxicity of oxaliplatin with plasma exposure in coefficient of drug interaction analysis. The combination treatment led to an increased DNA damage response (increased phosphorylation of ATM, γ-H2AX foci, and micronuclei formation). There was also an enhanced secretion of immunogenic cell death markers ATP and CXCL10 in cell culture supernatants following combination treatment. The observed synergistic effects in tumor cells was due to enhanced intracellular doxorubicin accumulation via upregulation of the organic cationic transporter SLC22A16 by plasma treatment. The doxorubicin uptake was reversed by pretreating cells with antioxidants or calcium influx inhibitor BTP2. Endoribonuclease-prepared siRNAs (esiRNA)-mediated knockdown of SLC22A16 inhibited the additive cytotoxic effect in tumor cells. SK-MEL 28 and THP-1 monocytes co-culture led to greater THP-1 cell migration and SK-MEL-28 cytotoxicity when compared with controls. Taken together, we propose pro-oxidant treatment modalities to sensitize chemoresistant melanoma cells towards subsequent chemotherapy, which may serve as therapeutic strategy in combination treatment in oncology.

Clinical features and response to systemic therapy in a historical cohort of advanced or unresectable mucosal melanoma

There are very few data available regarding the pattern of first metastases in resected mucosal melanomas (MMs) as well as the response of advanced MM to cytotoxic therapy. A retrospective, single-institution cohort was assembled of all patients with advanced/unresectable MM between 1995 and 2012 who had received systemic therapy with available imaging (N=81). Responses to first-line and second-line systemic therapy were assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1. The relationship between response, overall survival, and clinical covariates was investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Primary sites included anorectal (N=31, 38%), vulvovaginal (N=28, 35%), head and neck (N=21, 26%), and gallbladder (N=1, 1%) mucosa. Seven percent of patients had their first relapse in the brain. Cytotoxic therapy represented 82 and 51% of first-line and second-line regimens. The best response achieved in the first-line setting was similar for single-agent [10%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1-32%] and combination alkylator therapy (8%; 95% CI: 2-21%). Median overall survival from first-line treatment was 10.3 months (95% CI: 8.7-13.9 months). Patients with elevated lactic dehydrogenase [hazard ratio (HR): 1.87, 95% CI: 1.10-3.19, P=0.020] and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1-2 (HR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.05-2.72, P=0.030) had a higher risk of death, whereas patients with 12-week objective responses had a lower risk of death (HR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.41, P<0.001). Cytotoxic systemic therapy has modest activity in advanced/unresectable MM, belying its adjuvant benefit. Patients whose tumors have an objective response to therapy have a lower probability of death. Brain imaging should be considered in routine surveillance.

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.

An Update on Randomized Clinical Trials in Melanoma

Despite many advances in the treatment of melanoma, it still continues to be a disease that affects many people. Fortunately, there have been a multitude of randomized trials that have refined the treatment of this prevalent disease. From 1975 to 2000, there were 154 prospective randomized trials on the treatment of local, regional, and metastatic melanoma. From 2001 to now, additional randomized trials have focused on the role of surgery, adjuvants to surgery, and treatment of metastatic disease. The results of the practice-changing trials are summarized in this review.

Incidence of Severe Nephrotoxicity With Cisplatin Based on Renal Function Eligibility Criteria: Indirect Comparison Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this meta-analysis was to indirectly compare incidence of nephrotoxicity in trials using cisplatin (CIS) for treatment of solid tumors when renal function was assessed using serum creatinine (SCr) or creatinine clearance (CrCl) for eligibility criteria.

METHODS

Randomized trials comparing CIS-containing with non-CIS-containing chemotherapy regimens were identified in PubMed. Included studies were performed from 1990 to 2010, used SCr or CrCl as an eligibility criterion, and reported incidence of grade ≥3 nephrotoxicity for both treatment arms using World Health Organization (WHO) or National Cancer Institute (NCI) toxicity criteria. The relative risk (RR) of grade ≥3 nephrotoxicity associated with CIS versus non-CIS regimens was examined. Subgroup analyses, adjusted indirect comparison, and metaregression were used to compare SCr and CrCl.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 2359 studies, 42 studies met all the inclusion criteria (N=9521 patients). SCr was used as an eligibility criterion in 20 studies (N=4704), CrCl was used in 9 studies (N=1650), and either was used in 13 studies (N=3167). The overall RR for developing nephrotoxicity with CIS versus non-CIS treatment was 1.75 (P=0.005). Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk when SCr was used (RR=2.60, P=0.005) but not when CrCl was used (RR=1.50, P=0.19). Both the adjusted indirect comparison and metaregression showed a nonsignificantly reduced risk of nephrotoxicity when CrCl was used.

CONCLUSIONS

CIS-based therapy was associated with a significant increase in severe nephrotoxicity. The risk of severe nephrotoxicity appears to be lower when CrCl was used to determine whether people should be treated with CIS.

Evaluating the cytotoxic effects of the water extracts of four anticancer herbs against human malignant melanoma cells

Malignant melanoma (MM) is the most dangerous type of skin cancer, killing more than 1,100 people each year in Canada. Prognosis for late stage and recurrent MM is extremely poor due to insensitivity to chemotherapy drugs, and thus many patients seek complementary and alternative medicines. In this study, we examined four commonly used anticancer herbs in traditional Chinese medicine, Hedyotis diffusa, Scutellaria barbata, Lobelia chinensis, and Solanum nigrum, for their in vitro antitumor effects toward human MM cell line A-375. The crude water extract of S. nigrum (1 g of dry herb in 100 mL water) and its 2-fold dilution caused 52.8%±13.0% and 17.3%±2.7% cytotoxicity in A-375 cells, respectively (P<0.01). The crude water extract of H. diffusa caused 11.1%±12.4% cytotoxicity in A-375 cells with no statistical significance (P>0.05). Higher concentrated formulation might be needed for H. diffusa to exert its cytotoxic effect against A-375 cells. No cytotoxicity was observed in A-375 cells treated with crude water extract of S. barbata and L. chinensis. Further high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy analysis of the herbal extracts implicated that S. nigrum and H. diffusa might have adopted the same bioactive components for their cytotoxic effects in spite of belonging to two different plant families. We also showed that the crude water extract of S. nigrum reduced intracellular reactive oxygen species generation in A-375 cells, which may lead to a cytostatic effect. Furthermore, synergistic effect was achieved when crude water extract of S. nigrum was coadministered with temozolomide, a chemotherapy drug for skin cancer.

MGMT promoter methylation is associated with temozolomide response and prolonged progression-free survival in disseminated cutaneous melanoma

To investigate the predictive and prognostic value of O(6) -methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) inactivation by analyses of promoter methylation in pretreatment tumor biopsies from patients with cutaneous melanoma treated with dacarbazine (DTIC) or temozolomide (TMZ) were performed. The patient cohorts consisted of Belgian and Swedish disseminated melanoma patients. Patients were subdivided into those receiving single-agent treatment with DTIC/TMZ (cohort S, n = 74) and those treated with combination chemotherapy including DTIC/TMZ (cohort C, n = 79). Median follow-up was 248 and 336 days for cohort S and cohort C, respectively. MGMT promoter methylation was assessed by three methods. The methylation-related transcriptional silencing of MGMT mRNA expression was assessed by real-time RT-PCR. Response to chemotherapy and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were correlated to MGMT promoter methylation status. MGMT promoter methylation was detected in tumor biopsies from 21.5 % of the patients. MGMT mRNA was found to be significantly lower in tumors positive for MGMT promoter methylation compared to tumors without methylation in both treatment cohorts (p < 0.005). DTIC/TMZ therapy response rate was found to be significantly associated with MGMT promoter methylation in cohort S (p = 0.0005), but did not reach significance in cohort C (p = 0.16). Significantly longer PFS was observed among patients with MGMT promoter-methylated tumors (p = 0.002). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified presence of MGMT promoter methylation as an independent variable associated with longer PFS. Together, this implies that MGMT promoter methylation is associated with response to single-agent DTIC/TMZ and longer PFS in disseminated cutaneous melanoma.

Molecular status of pituitary carcinoma and atypical adenoma that contributes the effectiveness of temozolomide

There have been several reports of temozolomide (TMZ) treatment of pituitary carcinomas and atypical adenomas. O(6)-methyl-guanine-DNA methyltransferase is not the sole molecule determining the sensitivity to TMZ in pituitary carcinomas and atypical adenomas. The Japan Society of Hypothalamic and Pituitary Tumors study suggests that MSH6, one of mismatch repair pathway enzyme, fulfills a contributory role to the efficacy of TMZ treatment for pituitary carcinomas and atypical adenomas. The preserved MSH6 function might be essential for the responsiveness to TMZ treatment in pituitary carcinomas and atypical adenomas.

Phase II randomized trial comparing high-dose IFN-α2b with temozolomide plus cisplatin as systemic adjuvant therapy for resected mucosal melanoma

PURPOSE

Mucosal melanoma is rare and associated with extremely poor prognosis. However, standard adjuvant therapy for mucosal melanoma has not been established. We conducted a randomized phase II clinical trial in patients with resected mucosal melanoma to compare the efficacy and safety of high-dose IFN-α2b (HDI) and temozolomide-based chemotherapy as adjuvant therapy.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Patients with mucosal melanoma in stage II/III after surgery were randomized into three groups: observation group (group A, surgery alone), HDI group (group B, treated with 15 × 10(6) U/m(2)/d IFN-α2b, followed by 9 × 10(6) U IFN-α2b), and temozolomide (200 mg/m(2)/d) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) group (group C). The endpoints were relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-nine patients were enrolled and finally analyzed. With a median follow-up of 26.8 months, the median RFS was 5.4, 9.4, and 20.8 months for group A, B, and C, respectively. Estimated median OS for group A, B, and C was 21.2, 40.4, and 48.7 months, respectively. Patients treated with temozolomide plus cisplatin showed significant improvements in RFS (P < 0.001) and OS (P < 0.01) than those treated with either HDI or surgery alone. Toxicities were generally mild to moderate.

CONCLUSION

Both temozolomide-based chemotherapy and HDI are effective and safe as adjuvant therapies for resected mucosal melanoma as compared with observation alone. However, HDI tends to be less effective than temozolomide-based chemotherapy for patients with resected mucosal melanoma in respect to RFS. The temozolomide plus cisplatin regimen might be a better choice for patients with resected mucosal melanoma.

Postoperative DAV-IFN-β therapy does not improve survival rates of stage II and stage III melanoma patients significantly

BACKGROUND

DAV-interferon (IFN)-β therapy is a combination chemotherapy of dacarbazine (DTIC), nimustine (ACNU) and vincristine (VCR) with local subcutaneous injection of IFN-β that is widely employed as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy to treat malignant melanoma in Japan. However, the efficacy of DAV-IFN-β therapy has not been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and the benefit of DAV-IFN-β therapy has not been established yet. This study evaluated the contribution of DAV-IFN-β therapy to improve survival of postoperative patients with cutaneous melanoma. Methods Patients with stage II or III cutaneous melanoma seen at Nagoya University Hospital from January 1998 to December 2009 were eligible for this study. Disease-free survival rates and melanoma-specific survival rates were evaluated. A propensity score was calculated to control for the effects of variables related to decisions regarding the application of DAV-IFN-β therapy.

RESULTS

Eighty-two stage II and 60 stage III melanoma patients were included. In the post-matched stage II patients (17 matched pairs), the mean (± SE) disease-free survival rates were 39.9 ± 13.7% for DAV-IFN-β therapy and 73.1 ± 11.7% for non-use (hazard ratio for recurrence, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.63-6.69; P = 0.23), and the melanoma-specific survival rates were 66.2 ± 20.0% for DAV-IFN-β therapy and 86.2 ± 9.1% for non-use (hazard ratio for death, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.17-6.82; P = 0.93). In the post-matched stage III patients (nine matched pairs), the disease-free survival rates were 29.6 ± 16.4% for DAV-IFN-β therapy and 33.3 ± 15.7% for non-use (0.69; 95% CI, 0.22-2.17; P = 0.53), and the melanoma-specific survival rates were 55.6 ± 16.6% for DAV-IFN-β therapy and 44.4 ± 16.6% for non-use (0.67; 95% CI, 0.18-2.50; P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

DAV-IFN-β therapy brought no significant improvement in either disease-free survival rates or melanoma-specific survival rates of patients with stage II or III cutaneous melanoma. A randomized controlled trial would be required to further evaluate the efficacy of DAV-IFN-β therapy as an adjuvant chemotherapy.

Central nervous system failure in melanoma patients: results of a randomised, multicentre phase 3 study of temozolomide- and dacarbazine- based regimens

Background:

This study compared the central nervous system (CNS) metastasis incidence between a temozolomide- and a dacarbazine-based regimen in untreated stage IV melanoma patients.

Methods:

A total of 150 patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral temozolomide (200 mg m⁻² per day; days 1–5) or intravenous dacarbazine (800 mg m⁻²; day 1), in combination with intravenous cisplatin (75 mg m⁻²; day 1) and subcutaneous interleukin-2 (3 MU twice daily; days 9–18), every 28 days (CTI and CDI).

Results:

A total of 149 patients were eligible for an intention-to-treat analysis (CTI: n=74, CDI: n=75). The 1-year cumulative CNS incidence failure was 20.6% for CTI and 31.1% for CDI (P=0.22). In all 24 patients in CTI (32%) and 34 (45%) in CDI developed CNS metastases; 31 patients died of early systemic progression, before CNS evaluation. Median survival time was 8.4 months in the CTI and 8.7 in the CDI arm; in patients with CNS metastases the median survival time was 13.5 months in the CTI and 11.5 in the CDI arm. No difference in toxicity was observed between the two arms.

Conclusion:

The incidence of CNS failures in metastatic melanoma was not significantly reduced and the clinical course was not modified substituting a dacarbazine-based regimen with a temozolomide–based regimen. Patients who developed CNS metastases did not have a worse prognosis than patients progressing in other sites and should not be excluded from new investigational studies.

Systematic review of medical treatment in melanoma: current status and future prospects

The incidence of melanoma is increasing worldwide, and the prognosis for patients with high-risk or advanced metastatic melanoma remains poor despite advances in the field. Standard treatment for patients with thick (≥2.0 mm) primary melanoma with or without regional metastases to lymph nodes is surgery followed by adjuvant therapy or clinical trial enrollment. Adjuvant therapy with interferon-α and cancer vaccines is discussed in detail. Patients who progress to stage IV metastatic melanoma have a median survival of ≤1 year. Standard treatment with chemotherapy yields low response rates, of which few are durable. Cytokine therapy with IL-2 achieves durable benefits in a greater fraction, but it is accompanied by severe toxicities that require the patient to be hospitalized for support during treatment. A systematic literature review of treatments for advanced, metastatic disease was conducted to present the success of current treatments and the promise of those still in clinical development that may yield incremental improvements in the treatment of advanced, metastatic melanoma.

Dose-dense temozolomide regimens: antitumor activity, toxicity, and immunomodulatory effects

Temozolomide is an oral alkylating agent with established antitumor activity in patients with primary brain tumors and melanoma. The originally approved temozolomide dosing regimen is 150 to 200 mg/m(2) per day (Days 1 to 5 every 28-day cycle [5 of 28 days]). However, extended dosing regimens (eg, 7 of 14 days, 21 of 28 days, 6 of 8 weeks, or continuously daily) allow for administration of a higher cumulative dose per cycle and have been shown to deplete O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase, which may enhance cytotoxic activity. This article reviews efficacy and safety data from studies that investigated dose-dense temozolomide regimens in patients with recurrent glioma and advanced metastatic melanoma. The clinical benefits of these dose-dense regimens compared with the standard 5 of 28-day regimen have yet to be established. Although the toxicity profile of dose-dense temozolomide is generally similar to that of the standard 5 of 28-day regimen, it is associated with an increased incidence and severity of lymphocytopenia. The clinical management of temozolomide-associated lymphodepletion and the potential risks and benefits of extended dosing with temozolomide are discussed. Preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that temozolomide-associated lymphodepletion may enhance the host immune response to tumor-associated antigens and/or immunotherapy and may overcome tumor-mediated immunosuppression. Further studies exploring the clinical implications of lymphodepletion are warranted.

Temozolomide for the treatment of metastatic melanoma

Questions

What is the role of single-agent temozolomide in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma?

In comparison with single-agent temozolomide, does the addition of interferon-α to temozolomide improve disease-free survival, overall survival, or response rates?

In comparison with single-agent temozolomide, does the addition of thalidomide to temozolomide improve disease-free survival, overall survival, or response rates?

Perspectives

Because of its oral route of administration and its ability to cross the blood–brain barrier, temozolomide is a potentially attractive chemotherapy agent for adult patients with unresectable metastatic malignant melanoma. To provide treatment recommendations for this new agent, the Melanoma Disease Site Group (dsg) of Cancer Care Ontario’s Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc) decided to review the available literature on single-agent temozolomide and on temozolomide in combination with interferon-α or thalidomide.

Outcomes

Outcomes of interest included response rates, disease-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, and adverse effects.

Methodology

Evidence was selected and reviewed by two members of the Melanoma dsg and by methodologists. The present practice guideline report was reviewed and approved by the Melanoma dsg, which comprises medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons, and dermatologists. External review was obtained through a mailed survey of Ontario practitioners, the results of which were reflected in revisions to the practice guideline. Final approval of the guideline report was obtained from the Report Approval Panel of the pbec.

Practice Guideline

These recommendations apply to adult patients with unresectable metastatic malignant melanoma.

It is reasonable to use temozolomide at a dose of 200 mg/m² orally for 5 days every 4 weeks as initial systemic treatment for patients with unresectable metastatic malignant melanoma.

The addition of moderate-dose interferon-α 2b has produced a significantly higher response rate than has single-agent temozolomide in a large randomized phase iii study. However, overall survival was not altered, and grades 3 and 4 hematologic toxicities were higher with the combined treatment. At the present time, the addition of interferon-α to temozolomide is not recommended.

One randomized phase ii study and six other phase ii studies showed encouraging response rates when thalidomide was combined with temozolomide. However, the doses and schedules of temozolomide in those studies differed from the conventionally prescribed doses and schedules. It is not clear whether the improved response rates were attributable to the small number of patients in the studies, the different temozolomide doses and schedules, or the addition of thalidomide. Further phase iii studies are required to confirm whether a benefit is associated with the combination of temozolomide and thalidomide. Therefore, at this time, it is not recommended that thalidomide be combined with temozolomide.

Qualifying Statements

Dacarbazine is the only chemotherapy drug currently approved for the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma. In large randomized trials, response rates with dacarbazine ranged from 6% to 15%. Almost all responses were partial, with a median response duration of only 7–8 months. Given these disappointing overall results, the consensus among most physicians who are treating patients with metastatic malignant melanoma is that recommending more convenient treatment or experimental treatment to these patients is appropriate.

Because of oral dosing, temozolomide is a reasonable choice, particularly for patients who would have difficulty traveling to cancer centres for intravenous chemotherapy.

Temozolomide has demonstrated efficacy equal to that of dacarbazine in a randomized phase iii trial. However, unlike dacarbazine, temozolomide is a convenient oral treatment that penetrates the blood–brain barrier and that has shown activity against brain metastases. Although surgery is the preferred treatment modality for patients with solitary brain metastases from melanoma, temozolomide is the preferred chemotherapy for patients with brain metastases who require systemic treatment.

Randomized clinical trials in melanoma

The incidence of melanoma is increasing and it is estimated that, in the United States, the lifetime risk of developing melanoma is 1 in 55. There have been many randomized trials that have refined the treatment and minimized the morbidity of the intervention of this prevalent disease. From 1975 to 2000, there were 154 prospective randomized trials on the treatment of local, regional, and metastatic melanoma. Between 2001 and the end of 2008, there were 52 randomized controlled trials relating to the treatment of patients with malignant melanoma. This article reviews the results of the major studies included in the prior article, and provides a detailed description of selected randomized controlled trials performed from 2001 to 2008.

The role of emerging and investigational therapies for metastatic brain tumors: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline of selected topics

QUESTION

What evidence is available regarding the emerging and investigational therapies for the treatment of metastatic brain tumors?

TARGET POPULATION

These recommendations apply to adults with brain metastases.

RECOMMENDATIONS

New radiation sensitizers Level 2 A subgroup analysis of a large prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) suggested a prolongation of time to neurological progression with the early use of motexafin-gadolinium (MGd). Nonetheless this was not borne out in the overall study population and therefore an unequivocal recommendation to use the currently available radiation sensitizers, motexafin-gadolinium and efaproxiral (RSR 13) cannot be provided. Interstitial modalities There is no evidence to support the routine use of new or existing interstitial radiation, interstitial chemotherapy and or other interstitial modalities outside of approved clinical trials. New chemotherapeutic agents Level 2 Treatment of melanoma brain metastases with whole brain radiation therapy and temozolomide is reasonable based on one class II study. Level 3 Depending on individual circumstances there may be patients who benefit from the use of temozolomide or fotemustine in the therapy of their brain metastases. Molecular targeted agents Level 3 The use of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors may be of use in the management of brain metastases from non-small cell lung carcinoma.

Temozolomide for the treatment of metastatic melanoma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review examines the role of temozolomide in patients with metastatic melanoma. Outcomes of interest include response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, and adverse effects.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1980 through to 2005 using variations on the search terms: melanoma, clinical trial, random, temozolomide, temodal, and temodar. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting proceedings were searched from 1996 to 2005. Relevant articles and abstracts were selected and reviewed by two reviewers, and the reference lists from these sources were searched for additional trials.

RESULTS

Two randomized phase III trials and three randomized phase II trials were located. In addition, 21 phase I or II trials investigating single-agent temozolomide, temozolomide plus interferon-alpha, and temozolomide plus thalidomide were reviewed. A direct comparison of temozolomide and dacarbazine demonstrated equal efficacy for response rates and overall survival; however, no significant difference was reported. A second phase III study comparing single-agent temozolomide with temozolomide combined with interferon-alpha indicated a significantly higher response rate for the combination treatment arm, but no difference in overall survival was noted. Further phase III studies are required to confirm whether there is a benefit associated with the combination of temozolomide and interferon-alpha or thalidomide.

CONCLUSION

Our review of the available literature suggests that temozolomide demonstrates comparable activity to the current standard treatment, dacarbazine, with the additional benefit of being a convenient oral treatment that penetrates the blood-brain barrier.

Temozolomide in the treatment of an invasive prolactinoma resistant to dopamine agonists

Prolactinomas are common tumors of the anterior pituitary gland. While conventional therapies, including dopamine agonists, transsphenoidal surgery and radiotherapy, are usually effective in controlling tumor growth, some patients develop treatment-resistant tumors. In this report, we describe a patient with an invasive prolactinoma resistant to conventional therapy that responded to the administration of the alkylating agent, temozolomide.

A phase I/II study of lomustine and temozolomide in patients with cerebral metastases from malignant melanoma

Temozolomide is an alkylating agent with activity in the treatment of melanoma metastatic to the brain. Lomustine is a nitrosurea that crosses the blood brain barrier and there is evidence to suggest that temozolomide may reverse resistance to lomustine. A multicentre phase I/II study was conducted to assess the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety and efficacy of the combination of temozolomide and lomustine in melanoma metastatic to the brain. Increasing doses of temozolomide and lomustine were administered in phase I of the study to determine the MTD. Patients were treated at the MTD in phase II of the study to six cycles, disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Twenty-six patients were enrolled in the study. In phase I of the study, the MTD was defined as temozolomide 150 mg m⁻² days 1–5 every 28 days and lomustine 60 mg m^–2 on day 5 every 56 days. Dose-limiting neutropaenia and thrombocytopaenia were observed at higher doses. Twenty patients were treated at this dose in phase II of the study. No responses to therapy were observed. Median survival from starting chemotherapy was 2 months. The combination of temozolomide and lomustine in patients with brain metastases from melanoma does not demonstrate activity. The further evaluation of this combination therefore is not warranted.

Temozolomide: a milestone in neuro-oncology and beyond?

Temozolomide (Temodal, Temodar), an imidazol derivative, is a second-generation alkylating agent. The orally available prodrug with the capacity of crossing the blood-brain barrier received accelerated US FDA approval in 1999. Three pivotal Phase II trials showed modest activity in the treatment of recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma glioblastoma. In 2005, the FDA and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products approved temozolomide for use in newly diagnosed glioblastoma, in conjunction with radiotherapy, based on an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/National Cancer Institute of Canada Phase III trial. The adverse events associated with temozolomide are mild-to-moderate and generally predictable; the most serious are noncumulative and reversible myelosuppression and, in particular, thrombocytopenia, which occurs in less than 5% of patients. Continuous temozolomide administration is associated with profound CD4-selective lymphocytopenia. Molecular studies have suggested that the benefit of temozolomide chemotherapy is restricted to patients whose tumors have a methylated methylguanine methyltransferase gene promotor and are thus unable to repair some of the chemotherapy-induced DNA damage. Temozolomide is under investigation for other disease entities, in particular lower-grade glioma, brain metastases and melanoma.

Temozolomide in combination with celecoxib in patients with advanced melanoma. A phase II study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

There is now increasing evidence that a constitutive expression of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 plays a role in the development and progression of malignant epithelial tumors. Expression of COX-2 is seen in 93% of melanomas, as determined by immunohistochemistry. Temozolomide (TMZ) has demonstrated activity against melanoma and has been investigated as single agent or in combination. We designed a phase II study to assess the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of TMZ and celecoxib (a COX-2 inhibitor) in patients with advanced melanoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2003 to July 2004, 52 patients were enrolled in the study. Nineteen patients were M1a, six M1b and 27 M1c. Patients received TMZ 200 mg/m(2) per day p.o. for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks and celecoxib 400 mg b.i.d. p.o. for a maximum of six cycles. Celecoxib was continued until progression.

RESULTS

The median age was 63 years. There were 29 males and 23 females. Among 50 assessable patients, there were 11 (21.5%) objective responses including five complete responses and six partial responses. Twenty patients (38.5%) had stabilization of their disease, and 19 (36.5%) progressed. The median time to progression was 4.6 months and the median survival 9.5 months. Twenty-two patients (41.5%) completed all cycles of treatment. Median relative dose intensity of TMZ was 0.99 (range 0.6-1.2). Most commonly seen toxic effects included anemia (27.5%), neutropenia (17.5%), thrombocytopenia (33%), nausea/vomiting (75%), gastrointestinal (52%) and fatigue (46.5%). One patient discontinued due to severe toxicity. COX-2 was determined by immunohistochemistry and was expressed in all cases.

CONCLUSION

The combination of TMZ and celecoxib is safe and potentially effective in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Randomized studies are needed to explore the role of celecoxib in combination with chemotherapy or as maintenance treatment in these patients.

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.