F Serra1, S Barruscotti2, T Dominioni3, A Zuccarini1, P Pedrazzoli1, S Chiellino4. 1. Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy. 2. Dermatology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy. 3. General Surgery Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy. 4. Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy. silviachiellino@hotmail.it.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the last few years, the advent of targeted therapy and immunotherapy has improved the management and the prognosis of metastatic melanoma, but the spread of resistance mechanisms can lead to disease progression. The clinical management in this setting can be challenging because the oncologist has to decide what is the best treatment strategy among therapy beyond progression (TBP), therapy change, and the rechallenge approach. This review of the relevant scientific literature is intended to clarify which patients with progressing metastatic melanoma will benefit from continuation of ongoing therapy and which ones will not. The data are based on a total of about 4300 patients coming from the main retrospective studies in the chosen field. The article body is divided into four sections which analyze respectively the targeted therapy beyond progression, the immunotherapy beyond progression, the possible treatment sequences, and finally the rechallenge strategy. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the possible approaches of TBP or rechallenge, the patient may not have an optimal response and may need new therapy, which is currently missing. To broaden the pharmacological offer in the fight against melanoma, cancer research is studying new disease targets, like the NRAS, PI3K, and cKIT pathways or combination treatment of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy. Despite the limitations of this work, mainly due to the limited number of studies, their retrospective nature and the lack of comparative studies, the analysis performed allows us to draw some important conclusions: therapy beyond progression, both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, represents a valid treatment option with positive effects on disease control and survival outcomes for patients with low clinical risk, expressed as low disease burden, normal LDH levels, and good performance status; moreover, the prognosis and quality of life of these patients improve when TBP is associated with locoregional treatments. In patients with progressive metastatic melanoma and high clinical risk (high disease burden, high LDH levels, and poor performance status), it is recommended to change therapy, without ever forgetting the possibility of enrolling the patient in a clinical trial. Finally, an efficacious treatment alternative is the rechallenge strategy; this approach consists in a re-treatment with the same drug after a variable interval of discontinuation. Preliminary studies seem to have demonstrated that patients retreated with targeted therapy achieved a greater benefit if they had a low clinical risk and if the drug doublet (BRAF + MEK inhibitors) was used. On the side of immunotherapy, the rechallenge strategy produced a major benefit in patients who prior experienced a severe toxic episode.
INTRODUCTION: In the last few years, the advent of targeted therapy and immunotherapy has improved the management and the prognosis of metastatic melanoma, but the spread of resistance mechanisms can lead to disease progression. The clinical management in this setting can be challenging because the oncologist has to decide what is the best treatment strategy among therapy beyond progression (TBP), therapy change, and the rechallenge approach. This review of the relevant scientific literature is intended to clarify which patients with progressing metastatic melanoma will benefit from continuation of ongoing therapy and which ones will not. The data are based on a total of about 4300 patients coming from the main retrospective studies in the chosen field. The article body is divided into four sections which analyze respectively the targeted therapy beyond progression, the immunotherapy beyond progression, the possible treatment sequences, and finally the rechallenge strategy. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the possible approaches of TBP or rechallenge, the patient may not have an optimal response and may need new therapy, which is currently missing. To broaden the pharmacological offer in the fight against melanoma, cancer research is studying new disease targets, like the NRAS, PI3K, and cKIT pathways or combination treatment of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy. Despite the limitations of this work, mainly due to the limited number of studies, their retrospective nature and the lack of comparative studies, the analysis performed allows us to draw some important conclusions: therapy beyond progression, both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, represents a valid treatment option with positive effects on disease control and survival outcomes for patients with low clinical risk, expressed as low disease burden, normal LDH levels, and good performance status; moreover, the prognosis and quality of life of these patients improve when TBP is associated with locoregional treatments. In patients with progressive metastatic melanoma and high clinical risk (high disease burden, high LDH levels, and poor performance status), it is recommended to change therapy, without ever forgetting the possibility of enrolling the patient in a clinical trial. Finally, an efficacious treatment alternative is the rechallenge strategy; this approach consists in a re-treatment with the same drug after a variable interval of discontinuation. Preliminary studies seem to have demonstrated that patients retreated with targeted therapy achieved a greater benefit if they had a low clinical risk and if the drug doublet (BRAF + MEK inhibitors) was used. On the side of immunotherapy, the rechallenge strategy produced a major benefit in patients who prior experienced a severe toxic episode.
Authors: Sara Gandini; Francesco Sera; Maria Sofia Cattaruzza; Paolo Pasquini; Orietta Picconi; Peter Boyle; Carmelo Francesco Melchi Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Matthew M K Chan; Lauren E Haydu; Alexander M Menzies; Mary W F Azer; Oliver Klein; Megan Lyle; Arthur Clements; Alexander Guminski; Richard F Kefford; Georgina V Long Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: E Borcoman; Y Kanjanapan; S Champiat; S Kato; V Servois; R Kurzrock; S Goel; P Bedard; C Le Tourneau Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Antje Sucker; Daniel J Treacy; Cory M Johannessen; Eva M Goetz; Chelsea S Place; Amaro Taylor-Weiner; Steven Whittaker; Gregory V Kryukov; Eran Hodis; Mara Rosenberg; Aaron McKenna; Kristian Cibulskis; Deborah Farlow; Lisa Zimmer; Uwe Hillen; Ralf Gutzmer; Simone M Goldinger; Selma Ugurel; Helen J Gogas; Friederike Egberts; Carola Berking; Uwe Trefzer; Carmen Loquai; Benjamin Weide; Jessica C Hassel; Stacey B Gabriel; Scott L Carter; Gad Getz; Levi A Garraway; Dirk Schadendorf Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Jessica C Hassel; Kristina Buder-Bakhaya; Carolin Bender; Lisa Zimmer; Benjamin Weide; Carmen Loquai; Selma Ugurel; Alla Slynko; Ralf Gutzmer Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Paola Queirolo; Francesco Spagnolo; Virginia Picasso; Laura Spano; Enrica Tanda; Valeria Fontana; Laura Giorello; Domenico Franco Merlo; Ester Simeone; Antonio Maria Grimaldi; Marcello Curvietto; Michele Del Vecchio; Paolo Bruzzi; Paolo Antonio Ascierto Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-07-13