Development of a core outcome set for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma trials: identification of core domains and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The lack of uniformity in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) complicates efforts to compare treatment effectiveness across trials. OBJECTIVES: To develop a core outcome set (COS), a minimum set of agreed-upon outcomes to be measured in all clinical trials of a given disease or outcome, for the treatment of cSCC. METHODS: One hundred and nine outcomes were identified via a systematic literature review and interviews with 28 stakeholders. After consolidation of this long list, 55 candidate outcomes were rated by 19 physician and 10 patient stakeholders, in two rounds of Delphi exercises. Outcomes scored 'critically important' (score of 7, 8 or 9) by ≥ 70% of patients and ≥ 70% of physicians were provisionally included. At the consensus meeting, after discussion and voting of 44 international experts and patients, the provisional list was reduced to a final core set, for which consensus was achieved among all meeting participants. RESULTS: A core set of seven outcomes was finalized at the consensus meeting: (i) serious or persistent adverse events, (ii) patient-reported quality of life, (iii) complete response, (iv) partial response, (v) recurrence-free survival, (vi) progression-free survival and (vii) disease-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: In order to increase the comparability of results across trials and to reduce selective reporting bias, cSCC researchers should consider reporting these core outcomes. Further work needs to be performed to identify the measures that should be reported for each of these outcomes.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of locoregional melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment of brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of metastatic melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment for brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of metastatic melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: final overall survival results of the randomized BRIM-3 study.

BACKGROUND: The BRIM-3 trial showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. We present final OS data from BRIM-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). OS and PFS were co-primary end points. OS was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with and without censoring of data for dacarbazine patients who crossed over to vemurafenib. RESULTS: Between 4 January 2010 and 16 December 2010, a total of 675 patients were randomized to vemurafenib (n = 337) or dacarbazine (n = 338, of whom 84 crossed over to vemurafenib). At the time of database lock (14 August 2015), median OS, censored at crossover, was significantly longer for vemurafenib than for dacarbazine {13.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.0-15.4] versus 9.7 months [95% CI 7.9-12.8; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]; P = 0.03}, as was median OS without censoring at crossover [13.6 months (95% CI 12.0-15.4) versus 10.3 months (95% CI 9.1-12.8); HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.96); P = 0.01]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS rates for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine were 56% versus 46%, 30% versus 24%, 21% versus 19% and 17% versus 16% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. Overall, 173 of the 338 patients (51%) in the dacarbazine arm and 175 of the 337 (52%) of those in the vemurafenib arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, most commonly ipilimumab. Safety data were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib continues to be associated with improved median OS in the BRIM-3 trial after extended follow-up. OS curves converged after ≈3 years, likely as a result of crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib and receipt of subsequent anticancer therapies. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01006980.

Efficacy and safety of nilotinib in patients with KIT-mutated metastatic or inoperable melanoma: final results from the global, single-arm, phase II TEAM trial.

BACKGROUND: The single-arm, phase II Tasigna Efficacy in Advanced Melanoma (TEAM) trial evaluated the KIT-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor nilotinib in patients with KIT-mutated advanced melanoma without prior KIT inhibitor treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with KIT-mutated advanced melanoma were enrolled and treated with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. TEAM originally included a comparator arm of dacarbazine (DTIC)-treated patients; the design was amended to a single-arm trial due to an observed low number of KIT-mutated melanomas. Thirteen patients were randomized to DTIC before the protocol amendment removing this study arm. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), determined according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. RESULTS: ORR was 26.2% (n = 11/42; 95% CI, 13.9%-42.0%), sufficient to reject the null hypothesis (ORR ≤10%). All observed responses were partial responses (PRs; median response duration, 7.1 months). Twenty patients (47.6%) had stable disease and 10 (23.8%) had progressive disease; 1 (2.4%) response was unknown. Ten of the 11 responding patients had exon 11 mutations, four with an L576P mutation. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.2 and 18.0 months, respectively. Three of the 13 patients on DTIC achieved a PR, and another patient had a PR following switch to nilotinib. CONCLUSION: Nilotinib activity in patients with advanced KIT-mutated melanoma was similar to historical data from imatinib-treated patients. DTIC treatment showed potential activity, although the low patient number limits interpretation. Similar to previously reported results with imatinib, nilotinib showed greater activity among patients with an exon 11 mutation, including L576P, suggesting that nilotinib may be an effective treatment option for patients with specific KIT mutations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01028222.

Timing of completion lymphadenectomy after positive sentinel node biopsy in patients with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nodal staging with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) provides prognostic information to patients with melanoma and their physicians. It is not known whether the timing of CLND is associated with survival outcome and/or CLND tumour load. This study investigated whether CLND timing is associated with CLND tumour load, disease-free survival (DFS) and/or melanoma-specific survival (MSS). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients with SNB-positive melanoma from nine European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Melanoma Group centres undergoing surgery between 1993 and 2009 were examined. Patients were selected based on availability of CLND and follow-up data. The CLND interval was defined as the number of days between diagnosis and CLND. Patient and tumour characteristics were collected. Five-year DFS and MSS rates were calculated. Cox and logistic regression analysis were performed, adjusting for known prognostic/predictive indicators. RESULTS: A total of 784 patients were included in the study. Their median age was 51 (i.q.r. 40-62) years, and 418 patients (53·3 per cent) were men. Median Breslow thickness was 3·0 (i.q.r. 2·0-5·0) mm, and 148 patients (18·9 per cent) had a residual tumour load. Median CLND interval was 84 (i.q.r. 65-105) days. Five-year DFS and MSS rates were not significantly different for patients operated on with a median CLND interval of less than 84 days and those with an interval of at least 84 days (DFS: 54·2 versus 53·3 per cent respectively; MSS: 66·9 versus 65·1 per cent). In a multivariable Cox model, CLND interval was not a significant prognostic indicator. CLND interval was negatively correlated with identification of positive non-sentinel nodes, but following adjustment for known risk factors this effect was no longer found. CONCLUSION: The time interval between diagnosis of melanoma and CLND did not influence CLND tumour load, DFS or MSS.

Pregnancy and melanoma: a European-wide survey to assess current management and a critical literature overview.

BACKGROUND: Management of melanoma during pregnancy can be extremely challenging. The reported incidence of melanoma in pregnancy ranges from 2.8 to 5.0 per 100 000 pregnancies. There are no guidelines for the management of melanoma during pregnancy. METHODS: The survey was designed to investigate the opinions of melanoma physicians on decision making in relation to pregnancy and melanoma. A clinical scenario-based survey on management of pregnancy in melanoma was distributed all over Europe via the membership of the EORTC and other European melanoma societies. RESULTS: A total of 290 questionnaires were returned with a larger participation from southern Europe. A large heterogeneity was found for the answers given in the different clinical scenarios with 50% of the answers showing discordance, especially regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy during pregnancy. Discordant answers were also found for the counselling of women about a potential delay in getting pregnant after a high-risk melanoma (35% for a 2 year wait minimum vs. 57% no waiting needed), while for thin melanomas, as expected, there was more concordance with 70% of the physicians recommending no delay. Fifteen per cent of physicians recommended an abortion in stage II melanoma during the third month of pregnancy. Twenty per cent of the responders advised against hormonal replacement therapy in melanoma patients. CONCLUSIONS: The management of melanoma during pregnancy varies widely in Europe. At present, there is a lack of consensus in Europe, which may lead to very important decisions in women with melanoma, and guidelines are needed.

Prospective assessment of a gene signature potentially predictive of clinical benefit in metastatic melanoma patients following MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic (PREDICT).

BACKGROUND: Genomic profiling of tumor tissue may aid in identifying predictive or prognostic gene signatures (GS) in some cancers. Retrospective gene expression profiling of melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer led to the characterization of a GS associated with clinical benefit, including improved overall survival (OS), following immunization with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The goal of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the predictive value of the previously characterized GS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label prospective phase II trial ('PREDICT') in patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma. RESULTS: Of 123 subjects who received the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic, 71 (58.7%) displayed the predictive GS (GS+). The 1-year OS rate was 83.1%/83.3% in the GS+/GS- populations. The rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 5.8%/4.1% in GS+/GS- patients. The median time-to-treatment failure was 2.7/2.4 months (GS+/GS-). There was one complete response (GS-) and two partial responses (GS+). The MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic was similarly immunogenic in both populations and had a clinically acceptable safety profile. CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic demonstrated an overall 1-year OS rate of 83.5%. GS- and GS+ patients had similar 1-year OS rates, indicating that in this study, GS was not predictive of outcome. Unexpectedly, the objective response rate was lower in this study than in other studies carried out in the same setting with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. Investigation of a GS to predict clinical benefit to adjuvant MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic treatment is ongoing in another melanoma study.This study is registered at www.clinicatrials.gov NCT00942162.

Risk of second primary malignancies among 1537 melanoma patients and risk of second primary melanoma among 52 354 cancer patients in Northern Italy.

BACKGROUND: The number of melanoma survivors has been increasing for decades due to early diagnosis and improved survival. These patients have an increased risk of developing a second primary cancer (SPC); also, melanoma is frequently diagnosed among patients firstly diagnosed with an extracutaneous malignancy. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the risk of developing a SPC among 1537 melanoma patients, and the risk of second primary melanoma (SPM) in 52 354 extracutaneous cancer patients, who were treated at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy, during 2000-2010. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) by applying gender-, age-, year- and region-specific reference rates to the follow-up time accrued between the diagnosis of the first and the second primary malignancies. RESULTS: Seventy-six SPC were diagnosed during a median follow-up of 4 years, of which 49 (64%) during the first 2 years upon melanoma diagnosis. The SIR was increased for cancer of breast (4.10, 95% CI 2.79-6.03), thyroid (4.67, 95% CI 1.94-11.22), brain (6.13, 95% CI 2.30-16.33) and for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (3.12, 95% CI 1.30-7.50). During a median follow-up of 4 years, 127 SPM were diagnosed: thick lesions were less frequent than for melanoma diagnosed as first cancer. The SIR was increased for cancer of breast (5.13, 95%CI 3.91-6.73), thyroid (16.2, 95%CI: 5.22-50.2), head and neck (5.62, 95%CI 1.41-22.50), soft tissue (8.68, 95%CI 2.17-34.70), cervix (12.5, 95% CI 3.14-50.20), kidney (3.19, 95%CI 1.52-6.68), prostate (4.36, 95%CI 2.63-7.24) and acute myeloid leukaemia (6.44, 95%CI 2.42-17.20). CONCLUSIONS: The most likely causes of these associations are the clustering of lifestyle risk factors in the same subgroups of population, mainly on a sociocultural basis and surveillance bias. This raises important questions about how to best follow cancer survivors by avoiding an inefficient use of resources and an excessive medicalization of these patients' lives.

A randomized, controlled phase III trial of nab-Paclitaxel versus dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel versus dacarbazine in patients with metastatic melanoma was evaluated in a phase III randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with stage IV melanoma received nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review; the secondary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 529 patients were randomized to nab-paclitaxel (n = 264) or dacarbazine (n = 265). Baseline characteristics were well balanced. The majority of patients were men (66%), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0 (71%), and had M1c stage disease (65%). The median PFS (primary end point) was 4.8 months with nab-paclitaxel and 2.5 months with dacarbazine [hazard ratio (HR), 0.792; 95.1% confidence interval (CI) 0.631-0.992; P = 0.044]. The median OS was 12.6 months with nab-paclitaxel and 10.5 months with dacarbazine (HR, 0.897; 95.1% CI 0.738-1.089; P = 0.271). Independently assessed overall response rate was 15% versus 11% (P = 0.239), and disease control rate (DCR) was 39% versus 27% (P = 0.004) for nab-paclitaxel versus dacarbazine, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were neuropathy (nab-paclitaxel, 25% versus dacarbazine, 0%; P < 0.001), and neutropenia (nab-paclitaxel, 20% versus dacarbazine, 10%; P = 0.004). There was no correlation between secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) status and PFS in either treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: nab-Paclitaxel significantly improved PFS and DCR compared with dacarbazine, with a manageable safety profile.

Three-year follow-up of advanced melanoma patients who received ipilimumab plus fotemustine in the Italian Network for Tumor Biotherapy (NIBIT)-M1 phase II study.

BACKGROUND: In the NIBIT-M1 study, we reported a promising activity of ipilimumab combined with fotemustine in metastatic melanoma (MM) patients with or without brain metastases. To corroborate these initial findings, we now investigated the long-term efficacy of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis captured the 3-year outcome of MM patients who received ipilimumab combined with fotemustine as first- or second-line treatment. Median overall survival (OS), 3-year survival rates, immune-related (ir) progression-free survival (irPFS), brain PFS, and ir duration of response (irDOR) for the entire population and for patients with brain metastases were assessed. Clinical results were correlated with circulating CD3(+)CD4(+)ICOS(+)CD45RO(+) or CD45RA(+) T cells, neutrophil/lymphocyte (N/L) ratios, and tumorBRAF-V600 mutational status. RESULTS: Eighty-six MM patients, including 20 with asymptomatic brain metastases that had been pre-treated with radiotherapy in 7 subjects, were enrolled in the study. With a median follow-up of 39.9 months, median OS and 3-year survival rates were 12.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1-18.7 months] and 28.5% for the whole study population, and 12.7 months (95% CI 2.7-22.7 months) and 27.8% for patients with brain metastases, respectively. Long-term ir adverse events consisting of G1 rush and pruritus occurred in 21% of patients. The absolute increase from baseline to week 12 in 'memory' but not in 'naïve' T cells identified patients with a better survival (P = 0.002). The N/L ratio correlated with a significantly better survival at early time points. BRAF status did not correlate with clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term analysis of the NIBIT-M1 trial continues to demonstrate efficacy of ipilimumab combined with fotemustine in MM patients. Fotemustine does not seem to impair the immunologic activity of ipilimumab. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2010-019356-50. CINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01654692.

Ipilimumab retreatment in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: the expanded access programme in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Retreatment with ipilimumab has been shown to re-establish disease control in some patients with disease progression. Here, we report the efficacy and safety of retreatment with ipilimumab 3 mg kg(-1) among patients participating in an expanded access programme in Italy. METHODS: Patients who achieved disease control during induction therapy were retreated with ipilimumab upon progression (3 mg kg(-1) every 3 weeks for up to four doses), providing they had not experienced toxicity that precluded further dosing. Tumour assessments were conducted after retreatment, and patients were monitored throughout for adverse events. RESULTS: Of 855 patients treated with ipilimumab, 51 were retreated upon disease progression. Of these, 28 (55%) regained disease control upon retreatment and 42% were alive 2 years after the first induction dose of ipilimumab; median overall survival was 21 months. Eleven patients (22%) had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade during retreatment. These were generally mild-to-moderate and resolved within a median of 4 days. No new types of toxicity were reported. CONCLUSIONS: For patients who meet predefined criteria, retreatment with ipilimumab is generally well tolerated and can translate into clinical benefit. This strategy should be compared with other therapeutic options in randomised controlled trials.

Hepatic intra-arterial versus intravenous fotemustine in patients with liver metastases from uveal melanoma (EORTC 18021): a multicentric randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In uveal melanoma (UM) with metastatic disease limited to the liver, the effect of an intrahepatic treatment on survival is unknown. We investigated prospectively the efficacy and toxicity of hepatic intra-arterial (HIA) versus systemic (IV) fotemustine in patients with liver metastases from UM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either IV or HIA fotemustine at 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 (and 22 in HIA arm only) as induction, and after a 5-week rest period every 3 weeks as maintenance. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary end points. RESULTS: Accrual was stopped after randomization of 171 patients based on the results of a futility OS analysis. A total of 155 patients died and 16 were still alive [median follow-up 1.6 years (range 0.25-6 years)]. HIA did not improve OS (median 14.6 months) when compared with the IV arm (median 13.8 months), hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.50, log-rank P = 0.59. However, there was a significant benefit on PFS for HIA compared with IV with a median of 4.5 versus 3.5 months, respectively (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.84, log-rank P = 0.002). The 1-year PFS rate was 24% in the HIA arm versus 8% in the IV arm. An improved RR was seen in the HIA (10.5%) compared with IV treatment (2.4%). In the IV arm, the most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (42.1%) and neutropenia (62.6%), compared with 21.2% and 28.7% in the HIA arm. The main grade ≥3 toxicity related to HIA was catheter complications (12%) and liver toxicity (4.5%) apart from two toxic deaths. CONCLUSION: HIA treatment with fotemustine did not translate into an improved OS compared with IV treatment, despite better RR and PFS. Intrahepatic treatment should still be considered as experimental. EUDRACT NUMBER AND CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: 2004-002245-12 and NCT00110123.

Prognosis in patients with sentinel node-positive melanoma without immediate completion lymph node dissection.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic value of immediate completion lymph node dissection (CLND) for sentinel node (SN)-positive melanoma is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of immediate CLND on the outcome of patients with SN-positive melanoma. METHODS: Patients with SN metastases treated between 1993 and 2008 at ten cancer centres from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Melanoma Group were included in this retrospective study. Maximum tumour size, intranodal location and penetrative depth of SN metastases were measured. Outcome in those who had CLND was compared with that in patients who did not undergo completion lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: Of 1174 patients with SN-positive melanoma, 1113 (94.8 per cent) underwent CLND and 61 (5.2 per cent) did not. Median follow-up for the two groups was 34 and 48 months respectively. In univariable survival analysis, CLND did not significantly influence disease-specific survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.58 to 1.37; P = 0.600). However, patients who did not undergo CLND had more favourable prognostic factors. Matched-pair analysis, with matching for age, Breslow thickness, tumour ulceration and SN tumour burden, showed that CLND had no influence on survival (HR 0.86, 0.46 to 1.61; P = 0.640). After adjusting for prognostic factors in multivariable survival analyses, no difference in survival was found. CONCLUSION: In these two cohorts of patients with SN-positive melanoma and prognostic heterogeneity, outcome was not influenced by CLND.

Erratum: Why vitamin D for cancer patients?

[This corrects the article on p. 1 in vol. 3.].

Sentinel node biopsy for high-risk cutaneous nonanogenital squamous cell carcinoma: a preliminary result.

BACKGROUND: Certain patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) have much higher rates of regional nodal metastases than is often reported. This study aims to further validate sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) for SCC and the outcome of these patients following SNB. METHODS: 20 patients with high-risk nonanogenital SCC who underwent SNB between 1998 and 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. SNB was performed under local or general anesthesia following lymphoscintigraphy and blue dye injection. RESULTS: The median follow-up from SNB was 24 months. Tumor location included the head and neck (n = 11), extremities (n = 9) and trunk (n = 1). One patient had a positive sentinel node. This patient developed parotid metastases 13 months after refusing a complete neck dissection and is alive with progressive disease after 31 months. Two patients developed regional recurrence after negative SNB (1 is alive and disease free, the other died of progressive disease). Of the remaining patients, 15 are alive and disease free, 1 died of another malignancy and 1 was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: SNB for high-risk SCC is feasible and allows early detection and treatment of nodal metastases. Currently, SNB for SCC is not a standard treatment and requires further investigation to determine which patients would benefit best from this procedure.

A phase I-II study of the histone deacetylase inhibitor valproic acid plus chemoimmunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

We explored in a phase I/II clinical trial the combination of valproic acid (VPA), a clinically available histone deacetylase inhibitor, with standard chemoimmunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma, to evaluate its clinical activity, to correlate the clinical response with the biological activity of VPA and to assess toxicity. Patients were treated initially with VPA alone for 6 weeks. The inhibition of the target in non-tumour peripheral blood cells (taken as a potential surrogate marker) was measured periodically, and valproate dosing adjusted with the attempt to reach a measurable inhibition. After the treatment with valproate alone, dacarbazine plus interferon-alpha was started in combination with valproate. Twenty-nine eligible patients started taking valproate and 18 received chemoimmunotherapy and are assessable for response. We observed one complete response, two partial remissions and three disease stabilisations lasting longer than 24 weeks. With the higher valproate dosages needed to reach a measurable inhibition of the target, we observed an increase of side effects in those patients who received chemoimmunotherapy. The combination of VPA and chemoimmunotherapy did not produce results overtly superior to standard therapy in patients with advanced melanoma and toxicity was not negligible, casting some doubts on the clinical use of VPA in this setting (at least in the administration schedule adopted).

Surgery and radiotherapy in the treatment of cutaneous melanoma.

Adequate surgical management of primary melanoma and regional lymph node metastasis, and rarely distant metastasis, is the only established curative treatment. Surgical management of primary melanomas consists of excisions with 1-2 cm margins and primary closure. The recommended method of biopsy is excisional biopsy with a 2 mm margin and a small amount of subcutaneous fat. In specific situations (very large lesions or certain anatomical areas), full-thickness incisional or punch biopsy may be acceptable. Sentinel lymph node biopsy provides accurate staging information for patients with clinically unaffected regional nodes and without distant metastases, although survival benefit has not been proved. In cases of positive sentinel node biopsy or clinically detected regional nodal metastases (palpable, positive cytology or histopathology), radical removal of lymph nodes of the involved basin is indicated. For resectable local/in-transit recurrences, excision with a clear margin is recommended. For numerous or unresectable in-transit metastases of the extremities, isolated limb perfusion or infusion with melphalan should be considered. Decisions about surgery of distant metastases should be based on individual circumstances. Radiotherapy is indicated as a treatment option in select patients with lentigo maligna melanoma and as an adjuvant in select patients with regional metastatic disease. Radiotherapy is also indicated for palliation, especially in bone and brain metastases.