Cargando…
Considering adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma
Melanoma is among the few cancers that demonstrate an increasing incidence over time. Simultaneously, this trend has been marked by an epidemiologic shift to earlier stage at diagnosis. Before 2011, treatment options were limited for patients with metastatic disease, and the median overall survival...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7065103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31869447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32585 |
_version_ | 1783504998201556992 |
---|---|
author | Poklepovic, Andrew S. Luke, Jason J. |
author_facet | Poklepovic, Andrew S. Luke, Jason J. |
author_sort | Poklepovic, Andrew S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Melanoma is among the few cancers that demonstrate an increasing incidence over time. Simultaneously, this trend has been marked by an epidemiologic shift to earlier stage at diagnosis. Before 2011, treatment options were limited for patients with metastatic disease, and the median overall survival was less than 1 year. Since then, the field of melanoma therapeutics has undergone major changes. The use of anti–CTLA‐4 and anti‐PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination BRAF/MEK inhibitors for patients with BRAF V600 mutations has significantly extended survival and allowed some patients to remain in durable disease remission off therapy. It has now been confirmed that these classes of agents have a benefit for patients with stage III melanoma after surgical resection, and anti‐PD1 and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are standards of care in this setting. Some patients with stage II disease (lymph node‐negative; American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB and IIC) have worse melanoma‐specific survival relative to some patients with stage III disease. Given these results, expanding the population of patients who are considered for adjuvant therapy to include those with stage II melanoma has become a priority, and randomized phase 3 clinical trials are underway. Moving into the future, the validation of patient risk‐stratification and treatment‐benefit prediction models will be important to improve the number needed to treat and limit exposure to toxicity in the large population of patients with early stage melanoma. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7065103 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70651032020-03-16 Considering adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma Poklepovic, Andrew S. Luke, Jason J. Cancer Review Article Melanoma is among the few cancers that demonstrate an increasing incidence over time. Simultaneously, this trend has been marked by an epidemiologic shift to earlier stage at diagnosis. Before 2011, treatment options were limited for patients with metastatic disease, and the median overall survival was less than 1 year. Since then, the field of melanoma therapeutics has undergone major changes. The use of anti–CTLA‐4 and anti‐PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination BRAF/MEK inhibitors for patients with BRAF V600 mutations has significantly extended survival and allowed some patients to remain in durable disease remission off therapy. It has now been confirmed that these classes of agents have a benefit for patients with stage III melanoma after surgical resection, and anti‐PD1 and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are standards of care in this setting. Some patients with stage II disease (lymph node‐negative; American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB and IIC) have worse melanoma‐specific survival relative to some patients with stage III disease. Given these results, expanding the population of patients who are considered for adjuvant therapy to include those with stage II melanoma has become a priority, and randomized phase 3 clinical trials are underway. Moving into the future, the validation of patient risk‐stratification and treatment‐benefit prediction models will be important to improve the number needed to treat and limit exposure to toxicity in the large population of patients with early stage melanoma. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-12-23 2020-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7065103/ /pubmed/31869447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32585 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Poklepovic, Andrew S. Luke, Jason J. Considering adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma |
title | Considering adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma |
title_full | Considering adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma |
title_fullStr | Considering adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma |
title_full_unstemmed | Considering adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma |
title_short | Considering adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma |
title_sort | considering adjuvant therapy for stage ii melanoma |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7065103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31869447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32585 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT poklepovicandrews consideringadjuvanttherapyforstageiimelanoma AT lukejasonj consideringadjuvanttherapyforstageiimelanoma |