Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.

Patient perspectives on states worse than death: A qualitative study with implications for patient-centered outcomes and values elicitation.

BACKGROUND: Seriously ill patients rate several health outcomes as states worse than death. It is unclear what factors underlie such valuations, and whether consideration of such states is useful when making medical decisions. AIM: We sought to (1) use qualitative approaches to identify states worse than death, (2) identify attributes common to such undesirable health states, and (3) determine how participants might use information on these states in making medical decisions. DESIGN: Qualitative study of semi-structured interviews utilizing content analysis with constant comparison techniques. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed adults age 65 or older with serious illnesses after discharge home from one of two urban, academic hospitals. Eligible patients were purposively sampled to achieve balance in gender and race. RESULTS: Of 29 participants, 15 (52%) were female, and 15 were white (52%), with a median age of 72 (interquartile range 69, 75). Various physical, cognitive, and social impairments were identified as states worse than death. The most commonly reported attributes underlying states worse than death were perceived burden on loved ones and inability to maintain human connection. Patients believed information on states worse than death must be individualized, and were concerned their opinions could change with time and fluctuations in health status. CONCLUSIONS: Common factors underlying undesirable states suggest that for care to be patient-centered it must also be family-centered. Patients' views on using states worse than death in decision making highlight barriers to using avoidance of such states as a quality measure, but also suggest opportunities for eliciting patients' values.

The Interaction between Price Negotiations and Heterogeneity: Implications for Economic Evaluations.

Economic evaluation is an important element of the decision making process for the reimbursement of drugs. Heterogeneity can be considered an explained variation in clinical or economic outcomes based on the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of patients. However, to our knowledge, the relationship between price negotiations and population heterogeneity has not been considered in the literature to date. If a company offers a conditional discount that is dependent on obtaining reimbursement in 2 subgroups or indications, an interaction is generated between groups that should be accounted for in economic evaluations. Critically, where the drug has 2 indications but is only cost-effective in 1 indication at the full price (herein "indication 1"), the cost savings realized from implementation of the discount in indication 1 can be used to offset the incremental cost of extending reimbursement to indication 2 at the discounted price. This reduces the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and increases the probability of positive reimbursement compared to a stratified approach. Given the additional complexity that this introduces, we introduce a framework deemed the "hybrid approach" to guide the economic assessment. We present 2 worked examples. We show that failure to account for the interaction can lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding a drug's cost effectiveness and that adoption of strategic behavior could theoretically increase the reimbursement price of drugs. By adopting this framework, cost-effective interventions are identified that may have been previously misclassified as not being cost-effective and vice versa. Recognition of the interaction in the literature by pharmaceutical companies may influence the forms of discounts offered to decision makers. Therefore, we expect this research to have far-reaching effects on medical decision making.

Health Technology Assessment of Drugs in Ireland: An Analysis of Timelines.

BACKGROUND: The National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) is commissioned by the Corporate Pharmaceutical Unit of the Health Service Executive (HSE-CPU) to assess the evidence for the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of drugs for use by patients in Ireland. All new drugs are required to undergo rapid review (RR) appraisal by the NCPE. Following this, high-cost drugs or those predicted to have a significant budget impact then undergo a full health technology assessment (HTA) appraisal by the NCPE. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to quantify each stage of the timeline from marketing authorisation (MA) to completion of HTA appraisal and explore the association between submission features and the time to appraise RRs and HTAs. METHODS: All RRs and HTAs submitted to the NCPE (2015-2017 inclusive) were included in the dataset. Several dates and features of each submission were also listed for the purpose of analysis. RESULTS: A total of 158 RR and 49 HTA appraisals were completed by the NCPE between 2015 and 2017. The median time from MA to submission of RR was 59 days; the median time to appraise RR was 31.5 days. Only 49% of RRs appraised (2015-2017 inclusive) were recommended for HTA. The median time from RR decision to submission of HTA was 115 days, and the median time taken by the NCPE to appraise an HTA was 131 days. CONCLUSION: This paper identifies which stages of the process make a substantial contribution to the HTA timeline. Time to submission of RR varied widely between submissions, with only a few companies choosing to submit prior to an MA being granted. The average RR appraisal time was in line with the 4-week timeframe set out in a 2016 agreement. The time to appraise an HTA was longer than the 90-day timeframe.

The use of radiotherapy for the treatment of localized orbital amyloidosis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe two patients with localized orbital amyloidosis and the response of their condition to surgical debulking followed by external beam radiotherapy. DESIGN: Retrospective noncomparative interventional case series. OUTCOME MEASURES: Stabilization or regression of orbital signs after treatment. METHODS: Patients with biopsy-proven diagnosis of localized progressive orbital amyloidosis received 34 and 30 Gy fractionated external beam radiotherapy. The clinical case notes and histopathology for the two patients were reviewed. RESULTS: A 69-year-old man with orbital amyloid deposition in association with localized MALT lymphoma had a marked improvement in orbital signs following surgical debulking and radiotherapy, with no recurrence over two years. A 59-year-old woman with localized orbital amyloidosis showed regression of disease after surgical debulking and radiotherapy, with no evidence of recurrence after six years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: External beam radiotherapy following surgical debulking appears to halt the progression of localized orbital amyloidosis. Radiotherapy may be used in conjunction with surgical debulking of disease.

What is low-risk prostate cancer and what is its natural history?

This article reviews the definition, incidence, pathological characteristics and natural history of low risk localised prostate cancer. Low risk disease is typically defined as clinical stage T1/T2a, biopsy Gleason score