Contemporary Neoadjuvant Therapies for High-Risk Melanoma: A Systematic Review

Targeting the RAS upstream and downstream signaling pathway for Cancer treatment

Cancer often involves the overactivation of RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK (MAPK) and PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathways due to mutations in genes like RAS, RAF, PTEN, and PIK3CA. Various strategies are employed to address the overactivation of these pathways, among which targeted therapy emerges as a promising approach. Directly targeting specific proteins, leads to encouraging results in cancer treatment. For instance, RTK inhibitors such as imatinib and afatinib selectively target these receptors, hindering ligand binding and reducing signaling initiation. These inhibitors have shown potent efficacy against Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Other inhibitors, like lonafarnib targeting Farnesyltransferase and GGTI 2418 targeting geranylgeranyl Transferase, disrupt post-translational modifications of proteins. Additionally, inhibition of proteins like SOS, SH2 domain, and Ras demonstrate promising anti-tumor activity both in vivo and in vitro. Targeting downstream components with RAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and sorafenib, along with MEK inhibitors like trametinib and binimetinib, has shown promising outcomes in treating cancers with BRAF-V600E mutations, including myeloma, colorectal, and thyroid cancers. Furthermore, inhibitors of PI3K (e.g., apitolisib, copanlisib), AKT (e.g., ipatasertib, perifosine), and mTOR (e.g., sirolimus, temsirolimus) exhibit promising efficacy against various cancers such as Invasive Breast Cancer, Lymphoma, Neoplasms, and hematological malignancies. This review offers an overview of small molecule inhibitors targeting specific proteins within the RAS upstream and downstream signaling pathways in cancer.

Current Controversies in Melanoma Treatment

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this article and viewing the videos, the participant should be able to: 1. Discuss margins for in situ and invasive disease and describe reconstructive options for wide excision defects, including the keystone flap. 2. Describe a digit-sparing alternative for subungual melanoma. 3. Calculate personalized risk estimates for sentinel node biopsy using predictive nomograms. 4. Describe the indications for lymphadenectomy and describe a technique intended to reduce the risk of lymphedema following lymphadenectomy. 5. Offer options for in-transit melanoma management.

SUMMARY

Melanoma management continues to evolve, and plastic surgeons need to stay at the forefront of advances and controversies. Appropriate margins for in situ and invasive disease require consideration of the trials on which they are based. A workhorse reconstruction option for wide excision defects, particularly in extremities, is the keystone flap. There are alternative surgical approaches to subungual tumors besides amputation. It is now possible to personalize a risk estimate for sentinel node positivity beyond what is available for groups of patients with a given stage of disease. Sentinel node biopsy can be made more accurate and less morbid with novel adjuncts. Positive sentinel node biopsies are now rarely managed with completion lymphadenectomy. Should a patient require lymphadenectomy, immediate lymphatic reconstruction may mitigate the lymphedema risk. Finally, there are minimally invasive modalities for effective control of in-transit recurrences.

Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Targeting RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK signaling pathway in human cancer: Current status in clinical trials

Molecular target inhibitors have been regularly approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for tumor treatment, and most of them intervene in tumor cell proliferation and metabolism. The RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway is a conserved signaling pathway that plays vital roles in cell proliferation, survival, and differentiation. The aberrant activation of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signaling pathway induces tumors. About 33% of tumors harbor RAS mutations, while 8% of tumors are driven by RAF mutations. Great efforts have been dedicated to targeting the signaling pathway for cancer treatment in the past decades. In this review, we summarized the development of inhibitors targeting the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway with an emphasis on those used in clinical treatment. Moreover, we discussed the potential combinations of inhibitors that target the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signaling pathway and other signaling pathways. The inhibitors targeting the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway have essentially modified the therapeutic strategy against various cancers and deserve more attention in the current cancer research and treatment.

Melanoma: An update on systemic therapies

Despite advances in early detection as described in part 1 of this continuing medical education series, melanoma continues to be a large contributor to cutaneous cancer-related mortality. In a subset of patients with unresectable or metastatic disease, surgical clearance is often not possible; therefore, systemic and local therapies are considered. The second article in this series provides dermatologists with an up-to-date working knowledge of the treatment options that may be prescribed by oncologists for patients with unresectable stage III, stage IV, and recurrent melanoma.

Treatment of Plexiform Neurofibromas with MEK Inhibitors: First Results with a New Therapeutic Option

Neurofibromatosis type-1 (NF1)-associated plexiform neurofibromas (PN) are peripheral nerve sheath tumors that can significantly affect the quality of life. Until recently, surgery was the only treatment for these tumors. However, in most cases, surgery cannot achieve complete tumor removal and carries a high risk of postoperative deficits. Therefore, the recent approval of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib for the treatment of NF1-associated PN provides a long-awaited novel therapeutic option. Here, we report our experience with MEK inhibitor treatment in 12 pediatric NF1 patients with inoperable symptomatic PN. Eight patients received trametinib (median therapy duration 12.13 months and range 4-29 months), and four patients received selumetinib (median therapy duration 6.25 months and range 4-11 months). Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after 6 months of treatment was available for seven trametinib patients (median tumor volume reduction of 26.5% and range 11.3-55.7%) and two selumetinib patients (21.3% tumor volume reduction in one patient and +3% tumor volume change in the other one). All patients reported clinical benefits such as improved range of motion or reduced disfigurement. Therapy-related adverse events occurred in 58.3% of patients and mainly consisted of skin toxicity, paronychia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Two patients discontinued trametinib treatment after 14 and 29 months when severe skin toxicity occurred and no further reduction of tumor size was observed. In one patient, discontinuation of therapy resulted in a 27.2% tumor volume increase as demonstrated on volumetric MRI 6 months later. Our data show that MEK inhibition is a novel therapeutic approach for inoperable PN with promising results and a manageable safety profile.

Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Targeted Therapy for Borderline Resectable III B-D or IV Stage BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Melanoma

Simple Summary

Neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced disease or potentially resectable metastatic melanoma is expected to improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery. 46 patients were treated with BRAFi/MEKi or BRAFi before surgery with 78% R0 resection. In patients with a major pathological response with no, or less than 10%, viable cells in the tumor, median DFS and PFS were significantly longer than in patients with a minor pathological response.

Abstract

Neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced disease or potentially resectable metastatic melanoma is expected to improve operability and clinical outcomes over upfront surgery and adjuvant treatment as it is for sarcoma, breast, rectal, esophageal, or gastric cancers. Patients with locoregional recurrence after initial surgery and those with advanced regional lymphatic metastases are at a high risk of relapse and melanoma-related death. There is an unmet clinical need to improve the outcomes for such patients. Patients with resectable bulky stage III or resectable stage IV histologically confirmed melanoma were enrolled and received standard-dose BRAFi/MEKi for at least 12 weeks before feasible resection of the pre-therapy target and then received at least for the next 40 weeks further BRAFi/MEKi. Of these patients, 37 were treated with dabrafenib and trametinib, three were treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib, five with vemurafenib, and one with dabrafenib alone. All patients underwent surgery with 78% microscopically margin-negative resection (R0) resection. Ten patients achieved a complete pathological response. In patients with a major pathological response with no, or less than 10%, viable cells in the tumor, median disease free survival and progression free survival were significantly longer than in patients with a minor pathological response. No patient discontinued neoadjuvant BRAFi/MEKi due to toxicity. BRAFi/MEKi pre-treatment did not result in any new specific complications of surgery. Fourteen patients experienced disease recurrence or progression during post-operative treatment. We confirmed that BRAFi/MEKi combination is an effective and safe regimen in the perioperative treatment of melanoma. Pathological response to neoadjuvant treatment may be considered as a surrogate biomarker of disease recurrence.

Advances in the discovery and development of melanoma drug therapies

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic strategies for melanoma have evolved significantly over the last decade shifting from cytotoxic chemotherapies like dacarbazine to targeted therapies and immunotherapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors. These new drug therapies have improved overall as well as progression-free survival, lowering the mortality of this cancer for melanoma patients with advanced disease. Newer strategies incorporate combination therapies that harness synergies between mechanisms of anticancer efficacy as well as help overcome resistance issues of monotherapies, which remain a challenge.

AREAS COVERED

This review looks at each class of drug therapy for melanoma and provides an overview of the preclinical mechanism of action, the clinical efficacy data, and their applications in combination therapy regimens. NCCN treatment guidelines, safety, toxicity, and immune-related adverse events are also described as well as a note on cost.

EXPERT OPINION

Numerous ongoing trials continue to evaluate the role of novel therapies and combinations for this challenging disease and understanding their mechanism of action, risks, benefits, and treatment guidelines can help care providers and patients have a more comprehensive and tailored discussion of treatment options and expectations.