lnsights into Adjuvant Systemic Treatment Selection for Patients with Stage III Melanoma: Data from the Dutch Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND

Patient demographics and shared decision making might influence the choice of adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors for treatment selection of patients diagnosed with stage III melanoma to better understand current treatment decisions and improve further treatment counseling.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 2007 patients diagnosed with stage III melanoma, between December 2018 and 2021, sourced from the Dutch Cancer Registry, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the cohort, 48.7% received no therapy, 45.8% received checkpoint inhibition, and 5.5% received targeted therapy (TT). Patients foregoing therapy were significantly older [67.0 years (range 53.0-77.0) vs. 62.0 year (range 52.0-72.0)], had poorer performance scores (PS), and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores compared to those receiving therapy (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing therapy had significantly higher median Breslow thickness (3.3 mm vs. 2.2 mm) and higher prevalence of ulceration (49.9% vs. 38.1%). Those with connective tissue disease and/or congestive heart disease were more likely to receive TT [odds ration (OR) 8.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-37.6 and OR 9.3; 95% CI 1.2-72.2, respectively]. Median treatment time among strata for disease recurrence was 4.26 months (3.69-4.82) for immunotherapy and 3.1 months (0.85-5.36) for TT (p = 0.298). Patients who developed recurrent disease were equal across treatment types (p = 0.656). The number of patients with grade 3 complications was different for each treatment type [immunotherapy: 17.8% vs. TT: 37.3% (p < 0.001)].

CONCLUSIONS

Age, PS, and Breslow thickness seem to influence adjuvant treatment decisions. Clinicians' preference for immunotherapy might play a role in counseling BRAF-positive patients for adjuvant therapy, this however, cannot be confirmed in this dataset. Overall, only a small proportion of patients completed adjuvant treatment.

Adjuvant Therapy for Melanoma: Past, Current, and Future Developments

This review describes the progress that the concept of adjuvant therapies has undergone in the last 50 years and focuses on the most recent development where an adjuvant approach has been scientifically evaluated in melanoma clinical trials. Over the past decade the development of immunotherapies and targeted therapies has drastically changed the treatment of stage IV melanoma patients. These successes led to trials studying the same therapies in the adjuvant setting, in high risk resected stage III and IV melanoma patients. Adjuvant immune checkpoint blockade with anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab was the first drug to show an improvement in recurrence-free and overall survival but this was accompanied by high severe toxicity rates. Therefore, these results were bypassed by adjuvant treatment with anti-PD-1 agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab and BRAF-directed target therapy, which showed even better recurrence-free survival rates with more favorable toxicity rates. The whole concept of adjuvant therapy may be integrated with the new neoadjuvant approaches that are under investigation through several clinical trials. However, there is still no data available on whether the effective adjuvant therapy that patients finally have at their disposal could be offered to them while waiting for recurrence, sparing at least 50% of them a potentially long-term toxic side effect but with the same rate of overall survival (OS). Adjuvant therapy for melanoma has radically changed over the past few years—anti-PD-1 or BRAF-directed therapy is the new standard of care.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma and kidney cancer: from sequencing to rational selection

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs), including antibodies against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated antigen 4 and programmed cell death protein 1, have been shown to induce durable complete responses in a proportion of patients in the first-line and refractory setting in advanced melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. In fact, there are several lines of both targeted agents and ICPI that are now feasible treatment options. However, survival in the metastatic setting continues to be poor and there remains a need for improved therapeutic approaches. In order to enhance patient selection for the most appropriate next line of therapy, better predictive biomarkers of responsiveness will need to be developed in tandem with technologies to identify mechanisms of ICPI resistance. Adaptive, biomarker-driven trials will drive this evolution. The combination of ICPI with specific chemotherapies, targeted therapies and other immuno-oncology (IO) drugs in order to circumvent ICPI resistance and enhance efficacy is discussed. Recent data support the role for both targeted therapies and ICPI in the adjuvant setting of melanoma and targeted therapies in the adjuvant setting for renal cell carcinoma, which may influence the consideration of treatment on subsequent relapse. Approaches to select the optimal treatment sequences for these patients will need to be refined.