Melanoma Management: Options for Newly Diagnosed Patients

Treatment of a Positive Sentinel Lymph Node: MSLT-II

Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy were initially developed as a method for determining which patients should have a complete regional node dissection. However, as experience with the procedure grew, it became apparent that most patients with sentinel node metastases had all of their regional disease removed at the time of the minimally invasive nodal biopsy. As a result, most patients undergoing completion lymph node dissection had only normal lymph nodes found. Those patients who did have nonsentinel node metastases also had a relatively unfavorable prognosis, similar to the prognosis of patients with clinically-apparent regional disease. This led to the question of whether immediate completion lymph node dissection was necessary for patients with positive sentinel nodes, or whether such patients could be safely followed with intervention only if they developed regional recurrences. 

This question has now been prospectively evaluated in 2 randomized clinical trials, the results of which were recently reported. The 2 trials were the DeCOG-SLT from the German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group (n=483 randomized) and MSLT-II (n=1939 randomized).3,4 

Both trials showed that the additional regional surgery decreased the risk of recurrence in the nodal basin but did not reduce recurrences at distant sites or improve overall survival. There was significant staging or prognostic information gained from the completion dissection, which was independent of other variables (hazard ratio [HR], 1.78; P=.005). Both trials included nodal ultrasound to facilitate evaluation of regional nodes in follow up. These findings have been rapidly translated to guideline recommendations for management of patients with sentinel node melanoma metastases.2 

table 2 melanoma

At present, completion dissection remains an option for patients based on its ability to provide prognostic information and decreased risk of regional nodal recurrence, but careful observation is now an acceptable standard choice as well (Table 2). Unlike MSLT-I, MSLT-II did not demonstrate a suggestion of survival benefit in any particular subgroups. The trial was not powered to adequately address subgroups; therefore, some uncertainty remains regarding whether any specific patient cohorts would be better managed with immediate dissection. However, none of the groups that had been hypothesized to be more likely to benefit exhibited even trends toward improved outcomes. 

Implications of MSLT-II for the Use of Sentinel Node Biopsy 

Does the lack of survival benefit for completion lymph node dissection demonstrated in MSLT-II and DeCOG-SLT diminish the rationale for sentinel node biopsy? In fact, the result is probably the opposite. This is because it appears that most of the benefits in terms of staging and survival seen in MSLT-I were derived from the sentinel node portion of the intervention, rather than the larger complete dissection. 

Although completion dissection provides significant staging information, the most important prognostic discrimination is provided by the sentinel node. Although regional disease-free survival is improved by completion dissection, most patients with regional metastases have all of their nodal disease removed with the sentinel node. So more often than not, regional control can be obtained with the minimally invasive, low morbidity lymphatic mapping procedure. Omitting sentinel node biopsy would result in increased clinical nodal recurrences and, therefore, increased need for complete dissections.

In addition, the combined results of MSLT-I and MSLT-II indicate that any survival benefit derived from early nodal intervention occurs in patients whose disease is limited to the sentinel node. Overall, it would seem the impetus for sentinel node biopsy is increased as a result of MSLT-II and DeCOG. 

Adjuvant Medical Therapy

At the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meeting in September 2017, the landscape of adjuvant medical therapy for melanoma was changed forever. Until that time, choices for systemic treatment after surgical resection of metastatic disease were limited. Available agents included interferon-α; pegylated interferon-α, and ipilimumab, the anti-CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitor. 

All of these therapies were attended by the risk of significant toxicity. Interferon-α had been shown to improve recurrence-free survival, but its effects on overall survival were still debated—and modest at best. Ipilimumab (Yervoy) had shown both recurrence-free survival and overall survival improvements, but only, to date, in a population that generally did not have access to the drug in the metastatic setting. Because checkpoint inhibition can lead to long-term durable responses (or perhaps cures) in the metastatic setting, the overall survival benefit of this potentially toxic agent was not entirely clear. 

Two trials presented at the ESMO meeting and subsequently published have altered this situation. One involved adjuvant therapy using a combination of inhibitors of BRAF and MEK in patients whose melanomas harbored a V600E or V600K mutation, which is present in approximately half of melanomas. This trial demonstrated a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival.5 Overall survival was also better in the treatment arm of the trial compared to the control arm (HR, 0.57; P=.0006). In that study, patients did generally have access to the same or similar drugs if they needed them in the metastatic setting, suggesting early treatment is more effective than later treatment at the time of recurrence. 

The other study examined the use of nivolumab (Opdivo), an inhibitor of the programmed death-1 (PD-1) checkpoint.6 This study showed significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with the control arm of ipilimumab, which, as we have seen, also has activity. This improvement over an active control therapy adds to the therapeutic impression for adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. 

The toxicity that accompanied these adjuvant therapies also appears much more acceptable than that of our earlier options. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition is associated with fever and muscle and/or joint pain as common adverse effects. Some toxicities, such as an increase in squamous carcinomas of the skin, seen with BRAF inhibition alone were not as frequent with the combination regimen. 

Overall, only about 1 in 4 patients had to stop treatment due to side effects. For anti-PD-1 therapy, toxicities in general were autoimmune, as is the case overall for checkpoint inhibition. These adverse events for nivolumab, though, appear much less worrisome than those associated with ipilimumab, particularly in the adjuvant setting. Only about 8% of patients receiving nivolumab stopped treatment due to adverse effects. 

Conclusion

While mortality from melanoma remains too high, significant progress has been made in recent years not only in improving outcomes, but also in decreasing the morbidity associated with treatment. 

Using currently available techniques, patient prognosis now can be more precisely assessed, therapy can be individualized to risk, and patients can expect better long-term survival than was possible even a few years ago. Additional research will likely improve those results in the coming years. 

The era of a nihilistic approach to melanoma is definitively over, having been replaced by a new era of personalized, less morbid, and more effective therapy. It should only get better going forward. 

Dr Faries

Dr Faries is co-director of the Melanoma Program and head of Surgical Oncology at The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, an affiliate of Cedars-Sinai, in Los Angeles, CA. 

 

Disclosure: Dr Faries is on the Novartis Advisory Board, Castle Biosciences Advisory Board, and is a consultant for Delcath Systems.

References

1. Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al; MSLT Group. Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(7):599-609. 

2. Wong SL, Faries MB, Kennedy EB, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and management of regional lymph nodes in melanoma: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(2):356-377.

3. Leiter U, Stadler R, Mauch C, et al; German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group. Complete lymph node dissection versus no dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node biopsy positive melanoma (DeCOG-SLT): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):757-767. 

4. Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2211-2222.

5. Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1813-1823.

6. Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, et al; CheckMate 238 Collaborators. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1824-1835.



<- Previous     Select Page: