Annals of surgery · 2022
Multicenter Experience with Neoadjuvant Therapy in Melanoma Highlights Heterogeneity in Contemporary Practice.
Многоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rhodin Kristen E, Gaughan Elizabeth M, Raman Vignesh, Salama April K, Hanks Brent A, Shah Riddhishkumar, Tyler Douglas S, Slingluff Craig L, Beasley Georgia M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and impact of neoadjuvant therapy (NT) in patients who present with advanced melanoma amenable to surgical resection.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Given current effective systemic therapy for melanoma, the use of NT is being explored in patients with advanced melanoma with disease amenable to surgical resection.
METHODS: Prospective data from 3 institutions was obtained in patients with clinically evident Stage III/IV melanoma who underwent NT. The primary objective was to compare recurrence-free survival between patients who had pathologic complete response (pCR) to those with persistent disease.
RESULTS: NT was offered to 45 patients, with 43 patients initiating various NT regimens including PD-1 antagonist (PD-1) therapy (N = 16), PD-1 plus ipilimumab (N = 10), BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy (N = 14), a combination of those three (N = 1), and talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) (N = 2). Thirty-two (74.1%) patients underwent surgery whereas 11 patients did not undergo surgery for these reasons: clinical CR (N = 7), progressive disease not amenable to resection (N = 3), and ongoing therapy (N = 1). 12 of 32 patients (37.5%) had pCR with these therapies: PD-1 (N = 4), PD-1 plus ipilimumab (N = 2), BRAF/MEK (N = 4), combination (N = 1), and TVEC (N = 1). At median follow-up of 16.4 months there was only 1 recurrence in the pCR group and patients with a pCR had significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared to patients without pCR (p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability in NT regimens across institutions, NT for melanoma is feasible and associated with improved prognosis in patients who achieve a pCR. Maximizing rates of pCR could improve prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Given current effective systemic therapy for melanoma, the use of NT is being explored in patients with advanced melanoma with disease amenable to surgical resection.
METHODS: Prospective data from 3 institutions was obtained in patients with clinically evident Stage III/IV melanoma who underwent NT. The primary objective was to compare recurrence-free survival between patients who had pathologic complete response (pCR) to those with persistent disease.
RESULTS: NT was offered to 45 patients, with 43 patients initiating various NT regimens including PD-1 antagonist (PD-1) therapy (N = 16), PD-1 plus ipilimumab (N = 10), BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy (N = 14), a combination of those three (N = 1), and talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) (N = 2). Thirty-two (74.1%) patients underwent surgery whereas 11 patients did not undergo surgery for these reasons: clinical CR (N = 7), progressive disease not amenable to resection (N = 3), and ongoing therapy (N = 1). 12 of 32 patients (37.5%) had pCR with these therapies: PD-1 (N = 4), PD-1 plus ipilimumab (N = 2), BRAF/MEK (N = 4), combination (N = 1), and TVEC (N = 1). At median follow-up of 16.4 months there was only 1 recurrence in the pCR group and patients with a pCR had significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared to patients without pCR (p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability in NT regimens across institutions, NT for melanoma is feasible and associated with improved prognosis in patients who achieve a pCR. Maximizing rates of pCR could improve prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma.