Identifying high-risk stage IIIA cutaneous melanoma patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy: the importance of micrometastatic tumor burden.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Egger ME
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10477633 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Identifying high-risk stage IIIA cutaneous melanoma patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy: the importance of micrometastatic tumor burden.
Annals of translational medicine 20230303 10
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIndiscriminate use of adjuvant therapy in stage IIIA melanoma is controversial. We sought to model the clinical impact and cost of implementing a gene expression profile (GEP) test to guide adjuvant therapy.Study designA Markov decision-analysis model was created to represent resected stage IIIA melanoma with 3 treatment options: observation (OBS), adjuvant pembrolizumab for all patients (ALL), and selective adjuvant therapy (SEL). In the SEL option, only high-risk patients based on GEP stratification were treated with pembrolizumab. Cost of adjuvant therapy was normalized to reflect Medicare reimbursement schedules. The primary outcome was cost per mortality avoided at 10 years.ResultsModel projections for 10-year overall survival were 68% for OBS, 73% for SEL, and 76% for ALL. The estimated incremental cost-per-mortality-avoided (compared to OBS) was $2.1 million for SEL and $2.4 million for ALL. These translate to costs of $583.0K and $697.1K per life-year for the SEL and ALL strategies, respectively.ConclusionsRoutine adjuvant pembrolizumab for stage IIIA melanoma is costly, and risk-stratification by GEP only marginally improves the value of therapy.
| S-EPMC7854824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceUse of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care.ObjectiveTo develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies.Evidence reviewThe MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed.FindingsThe MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility.Conclusions and relevanceMore evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.
| S-EPMC8275355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmunotherapy agents are approved for adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma; however, evidence for survival benefit in early stage III disease is lacking. Current guidelines for adjuvant immunotherapy utilization in stage IIIA rely on clinician judgment, creating an opportunity for significant variation in prescribing patterns. This study aimed to characterize current immunotherapy practice variations and to compare patient outcomes for different prescribing practices in stage IIIA melanoma.Study designPatients with melanoma diagnosed from 2015-2019 that met American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition criteria for stage IIIA and underwent resection were identified in the National Cancer Database. Multiple imputation by chained equations replaced missing values. Factors associated with receipt of adjuvant immunotherapy were identified. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression compared overall survival across groups.ResultsOf 4,432 patients included in the study, 34% received adjuvant immunotherapy. Patients had lower risk-adjusted odds of receiving immunotherapy if they were treated at an academic center (OR=0.48, 95%CI=0.33-0.72, p<0.001 vs. community facility) or at a high-volume center (OR=0.69, 0.56-0.84, p<0.001 vs. low-volume). Immunotherapy receipt was not associated with risk-adjusted survival (p=0.095). Moreover, patients treated at high-volume centers experienced longer overall risk-adjusted survival than those treated at low-volume centers (HR=0.52, 0.29-0.93, p=0.030). Risk-adjusted survival trended toward being longer at academic centers than at community centers, but the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionAcademic and high-volume centers utilize significantly less adjuvant immunotherapy in stage IIIA melanoma than community and low-volume centers without compromise in overall survival. These findings suggest that this population may benefit from more judicious immunotherapy utilization.
| S-EPMC10876869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cutaneous melanoma continues to increase in incidence and poses a significant mortality risk. Surgical excision of melanoma in its early stages is often curative. However, patients with resected stages IIB-IV are considered at high risk for relapse and death from melanoma where systemic adjuvant therapy is indicated. The long-studied high-dose interferon-α was shown to improve relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) but is no longer in use. Adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (ipi10) demonstrated significant RFS and OS improvements but at a high cost in terms of toxicity, while adjuvant ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was shown to be equally effective and less toxic. More recently, the adjuvant therapy for resected stages III-IV melanoma in clinical practice has changed in favor of nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and BRAF-MEK inhibitors dabrafenib plus trametinib (for BRAF mutant melanoma) based on significant improvements in RFS as compared to ipi10 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and placebo (dabrafenib plus trametinib). For resected stages IIB-IIC melanoma, pembrolizumab achieved regulatory approval in the United States based on significant RFS benefits. In this article, we review completed and ongoing phase III adjuvant therapy trials. We also briefly discuss neoadjuvant therapy for locoregionally advanced melanoma. Finally, we explore recent studies on predictive and prognostic melanoma biomarkers in the adjuvant setting.
| S-EPMC9619267 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10773707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cutaneous melanoma is an aggressive tumor responsible for 90% of mortality related to skin cancer. In the recent years, the discovery of driving mutations in melanoma has led to better treatment approaches. The last decade has seen a genomic revolution in the field of cancer. Such genomic revolution has led to the production of an unprecedented mole of data. High-throughput genomic technologies have facilitated the genomic, transcriptomic and epigenomic profiling of several cancers, including melanoma. Nevertheless, there are a number of newer genomic technologies that have not yet been employed in large studies. In this article we describe the current classification of cutaneous melanoma, we review the current knowledge of the main genetic alterations of cutaneous melanoma and their related impact on targeted therapies, and we describe the most recent high-throughput genomic technologies, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. We hope that the current review will also help scientists to identify the most suitable technology to address melanoma-related relevant questions. The translation of this knowledge and all actual advancements into the clinical practice will be helpful in better defining the different molecular subsets of melanoma patients and provide new tools to address relevant questions on disease management. Genomic technologies might indeed allow to better predict the biological - and, subsequently, clinical - behavior for each subset of melanoma patients as well as to even identify all molecular changes in tumor cell populations during disease evolution toward a real achievement of a personalized medicine.
| S-EPMC8193952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Atezolizumab was first shown to significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) after platinum-based chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the IMpower010 Phase 3 trial. However, the cost-effectiveness and potential economic impact of atezolizumab treatment in Chinese patients are unknown. Methods Markov models were constructed based on follow-up data from the IMpower010 trial and assessed separately in the programmed cell death receptor ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor cells (TC) ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the intention-to-treat (ITT) group (stage IB–IIIA). Efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower010 trial, and costs and utility values were derived from the literature and local surveys to estimate their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds in scenarios implementing patient assistance programs (PAP) or drug price negotiations. Univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to investigate the stability of the model results. Results Compared with best supportive care (BSC), atezolizumab produced an additional 0.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), 0.04 QALYs, and -0.0028 QALYs in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group, and the ICERs were 108,825.37/QALY, 1,028,538.22/QALY, and -14,381,171.55/QALY, respectively. The ICERs all exceeded the WTP threshold of $27,354 per QALY (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China in 2022), and univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the price of atezolizumab played a crucial role in the model results. PSA showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group increased with the increasing WTP threshold. Conclusion From the perspective of China’s health care system, in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group, the use of atezolizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage NSCLC after platinum-based chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost-effective. The implementation of PAP or price reduction negotiations for atezolizumab might be among the most effective measures to improve its cost-effectiveness.
| S-EPMC9490556 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9844053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The global phase 3 IMpower010 study evaluated adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care (BSC) following platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with resected stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we report a subgroup analysis in patients enrolled in Japan. Eligible patients had complete resection of histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm)-IIIA NSCLC. Upon completing 1-4 cycles of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab (fixed dose of 1200 mg every 21 days; 16 cycles or 1 year) or BSC. The primary endpoint of the global IMpower010 study was investigator-assessed disease-free survival, tested hierarchically first in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC whose tumors expressed programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) on ≥1% of tumor cells, then in all randomized patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC, and finally in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (stage IB-IIIA NSCLC). Safety was evaluated in all patients who received atezolizumab or BSC. The study comprised 149 enrolled patients in three populations: ITT (n = 117; atezolizumab, n = 59; BSC, n = 58), all-randomized stage II-IIIA (n = 113; atezolizumab, n = 56; BSC, n = 57), and PD-L1 tumor cells ≥1% stage II-IIIA (n = 74; atezolizumab, n = 41; BSC, n = 33). At the data cutoff date (January 21, 2021), a trend toward disease-free survival improvement with atezolizumab vs BSC was observed in the PD-L1 tumor cells ≥1% stage II-IIIA (unstratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.08), all-randomized stage II-IIIA (unstratified HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.35-1.11), and ITT (unstratified HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34-1.10) populations. Atezolizumab-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 16% of patients; no treatment-related grade 5 events occurred. Adjuvant atezolizumab showed disease-free survival improvement and a tolerable toxicity profile in Japanese patients in IMpower010, consistent with the global study results.
| S-EPMC9746048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDespite many cases being preventable, cutaneous melanoma remains the most serious skin cancer worldwide. Understanding the scale and profile of the disease is vital to concentrate and reinforce global prevention efforts.ObjectiveTo examine global patterns of cutaneous melanoma in 2020 and to provide projected estimates of cases and deaths by 2040.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based study used the GLOBOCAN 2020 database for global epidemiological assessment of new cases and deaths due to invasive melanoma.Main outcomes and measuresAge-standardized incidence and mortality rates were calculated per 100 000 person-years by country, world region, and 4-tier level of human development. Estimated numbers of cases and deaths were calculated for the year 2040.ResultsA worldwide total of 325 000 new melanoma cases (174 000 males, 151 000 females) and 57 000 deaths (32 000 males, 25 000 females) was estimated for 2020. Large geographic variations existed across countries and world regions, with the highest incidence rates among males (42 per 100 000 person-years) and females (31 per 100 000 person-years) observed in Australia/New Zealand, followed by Western Europe (19 per 100 000 person-years for males and females), North America (18 per 100 000 person-years for males, 14 per 100 000 person-years for females), and Northern Europe (17 per 100 000 person-years for males, 18 per 100 000 person-years for females). Melanoma continued to be rare in most African and Asian countries, with incidence rates commonly less than 1 per 100 000 person-years. Mortality rates peaked at 5 per 100 000 person-years in New Zealand, and geographic variations were less pronounced than for incidence. Melanoma was more frequent among males than females in most world regions. If 2020 rates continue, the burden from melanoma is estimated to increase to 510 000 new cases (a roughly 50% increase) and to 96 000 deaths (a 68% increase) by 2040.Conclusions and relevanceThis epidemiological assessment suggests that melanoma remains an important challenge to cancer control and public health globally, especially in fair-skinned populations of European descent.
| S-EPMC8968696 | biostudies-literature