1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced or metastatic mucosal melanoma: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy offers minor benefit to patients with mucosal melanoma (MM). Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the preferred approach in patients with advanced or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, the evidence of their clinical use for MM is still limited. This systematic review aims to summarize the efficacy and safety of ICIs in advanced or metastatic MM.

          Methods:

          We searched electronic databases, conference abstracts, clinical trial registers and reference lists for relevant studies. The primary outcomes included the overall response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), one-year PFS rate, and one-year OS rate.

          Results:

          This review identified 13 studies assessing anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy, 22 studies assessing anti-PD-1 monotherapy, two studies assessing anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 combination therapy, one study assessing anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with axitinib, and three studies assessing anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with radiotherapy. For most patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy, the ORR ranged from 0% to 17%, the median PFS was less than 5 months, and the median OS was less than 10 months. For patients who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy, most studies showed an ORR of more than 15% and a median OS of more than 11 months. The combined administration of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 agents showed benefits over single-agent therapy with an ORR of more than 33.3%. In a phase Ib trial of toripalimab in combination with axitinib, approximately half of patients had complete or partial responses. Three retrospective studies that investigated anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with radiotherapy showed an ORR of more than 50%, which was higher than each single modality treatment.

          Conclusions:

          Immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone and in combination with anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies or other modalities, are promising treatment options for advanced or metastatic MM. However, high-level evidence is still needed to support the clinical application.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Alone or in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Mucosal Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

          Purpose Mucosal melanoma is an aggressive malignancy with a poor response to conventional therapies. The efficacy and safety of nivolumab (a programmed death-1 checkpoint inhibitor), alone or combined with ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 checkpoint inhibitor), have not been reported in this rare melanoma subtype. Patients and Methods Data were pooled from 889 patients who received nivolumab monotherapy in clinical studies, including phase III trials; 86 (10%) had mucosal melanoma and 665 (75%) had cutaneous melanoma. Data were also pooled for patients who received nivolumab combined with ipilimumab (n = 35, mucosal melanoma; n = 326, cutaneous melanoma). Results Among patients who received nivolumab monotherapy, median progression-free survival was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.2 to 5.4 months) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.5 months) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 23.3% (95% CI, 14.8% to 33.6%) and 40.9% (95% CI, 37.1% to 44.7%), respectively. Median progression-free survival in patients treated with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 months to not reached) and 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.9 to 16.7 months) for mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, with objective response rates of 37.1% (95% CI, 21.5% to 55.1%) and 60.4% (95% CI, 54.9% to 65.8%), respectively. For mucosal and cutaneous melanoma, respectively, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 8.1% and 12.5% for nivolumab monotherapy and 40.0% and 54.9% for combination therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of data for anti-programmed death-1 therapy in mucosal melanoma to date. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab seemed to have greater efficacy than either agent alone, and although the activity was lower in mucosal melanoma, the safety profile was similar between subtypes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            KIT as a therapeutic target in metastatic melanoma.

            Some melanomas arising from acral, mucosal, and chronically sun-damaged sites harbor activating mutations and amplification of the type III transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase KIT. We explored the effects of KIT inhibition using imatinib mesylate in this molecular subset of disease. To assess clinical effects of imatinib mesylate in patients with melanoma harboring KIT alterations. A single-group, open-label, phase 2 trial at 1 community and 5 academic oncology centers in the United States of 295 patients with melanoma screened for the presence of KIT mutations and amplification between April 23, 2007, and April 16, 2010. A total of 51 cases with such alterations were identified and 28 of these patients were treated who had advanced unresectable melanoma arising from acral, mucosal, and chronically sun-damaged sites. Imatinib mesylate, 400 mg orally twice daily. Radiographic response, with secondary end points including time to progression, overall survival, and correlation of molecular alterations and clinical response. Two complete responses lasting 94 (ongoing) and 95 weeks, 2 durable partial responses lasting 53 and 89 (ongoing) weeks, and 2 transient partial responses lasting 12 and 18 weeks among the 25 evaluable patients were observed. The overall durable response rate was 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-30%), with a median time to progression of 12 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 6-18 weeks; 95% CI, 11-18 weeks), and a median overall survival of 46.3 weeks (IQR, 28 weeks-not achieved; 95% CI, 28 weeks-not achieved). Response rate was better in cases with mutations affecting recurrent hotspots or with a mutant to wild-type allelic ratio of more than 1 (40% vs 0%, P = .05), indicating positive selection for the mutated allele. Among patients with advanced melanoma harboring KIT alterations, treatment with imatinib mesylate results in significant clinical responses in a subset of patients. Responses may be limited to tumors harboring KIT alterations of proven functional relevance. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00470470.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Imatinib for melanomas harboring mutationally activated or amplified KIT arising on mucosal, acral, and chronically sun-damaged skin.

              Amplifications and mutations in the KIT proto-oncogene in subsets of melanomas provide therapeutic opportunities. We conducted a multicenter phase II trial of imatinib in metastatic mucosal, acral, or chronically sun-damaged (CSD) melanoma with KIT amplifications and/or mutations. Patients received imatinib 400 mg once per day or 400 mg twice per day if there was no initial response. Dose reductions were permitted for treatment-related toxicities. Additional oncogene mutation screening was performed by mass spectroscopy. Twenty-five patients were enrolled (24 evaluable). Eight patients (33%) had tumors with KIT mutations, 11 (46%) with KIT amplifications, and five (21%) with both. Median follow-up was 10.6 months (range, 3.7 to 27.1 months). Best overall response rate (BORR) was 29% (21% excluding nonconfirmed responses) with a two-stage 95% CI of 13% to 51%. BORR was significantly greater than the hypothesized null of 5% and statistically significantly different by mutation status (7 of 13 or 54% KIT mutated v 0% KIT amplified only). There were no statistical differences in rates of progression or survival by mutation status or by melanoma site. The overall disease control rate was 50% but varied significantly by KIT mutation status (77% mutated v 18% amplified). Four patients harbored pretreatment NRAS mutations, and one patient acquired increased KIT amplification after treatment. Melanomas that arise on mucosal, acral, or CSD skin should be assessed for KIT mutations. Imatinib can be effective when tumors harbor KIT mutations, but not if KIT is amplified only. NRAS mutations and KIT copy number gain may be mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to imatinib.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Ther Adv Med Oncol
                Ther Adv Med Oncol
                TAM
                sptam
                Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1758-8340
                1758-8359
                18 May 2020
                2020
                : 12
                : 1758835920922028
                Affiliations
                [1-1758835920922028]Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
                [2-1758835920922028]Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
                [3-1758835920922028]Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
                [4-1758835920922028]Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
                [5-1758835920922028]Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100032, China
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9340-3962
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1333-9145
                Article
                10.1177_1758835920922028
                10.1177/1758835920922028
                7238311
                32489431
                c7474d0e-8ce2-4f5a-8aec-9912d0edb58c
                © The Author(s), 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 9 January 2020
                : 3 April 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, ;
                Award ID: 2016-I2M-1-001
                Funded by: CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, ;
                Award ID: 2017-I2M-4-003
                Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001809;
                Award ID: 61435001
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2020
                ts1

                mucosal melanoma,immune checkpoint inhibitor,ctla-4,pd-1,radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article