Adverse Effects of Modern Treatment of Malignant Melanoma and their Treatment/ Management
Authors:
J. Kopecký 1; O. Kubeček 1; P. Trojanová 1; E. Kubala 1; O. Kopecký 2
Authors place of work:
Klinika onkologie a radioterapie LF UK a FN Hradec Králové
1; Oddělení klinické onkologie, Oblastní nemocnice Náchod a. s.
2
Published in the journal:
Klin Onkol 2014; 27(6): 393-400
Category:
Review
doi:
https://doi.org/10.14735/amko2014393
Summary
Background:
Malignant melanoma belongs to the most deadly human tumours and despite all preventive programs its incidence continues to rise. Until 2011, chemotherapy was the only therapeutic option for inoperable or metastatic disease in the Czech Republic. However, new treatment modalities (e. g. targeted therapy) have been introduced recently.
Aim:
Since most of the modern drugs are still available only in clinical trials, the aim of this article is to provide a brief and comprehensive review of current treatment options for metastatic disease. The attention is focused on their potential side effects, so that doctors who do not usually deal with these drugs would get acquainted with them. This could contribute to a prompt management of associated symptoms or an early referral of the patient to an appropriate clinical centre without undue delay.
Key words:
melanoma – immunotherapy – targeted therapy – side effects – BRAF inhibitor – anti-CTLA-4 –anti-PD-1 – MEK inhibitor
The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.
The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.
Submitted:
30. 9. 2014
Accepted:
8. 10. 2014
Zdroje
1. Lakomý R, Poprach A, Koukalová R. Současné možnosti léčby pokročilého a metastatického maligního melanomu. Onkologie 2013; 7(2): 65– 68.
2. Peggs KS, Quezada SA, Korman AJ et al. Principles and use of anti‑CTLA4 antibody in human cancer immunotherapy. Curr Opin Immunol 2006; 18(2): 206– 213.
3. Hodi FS, O‘Day SJ, McDermott DF et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010; 363(8): 711– 723. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1003466.
4. Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(26): 2517– 2526. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1104621.
5. Weber JS, Kähler KC, Hauschild A. Management of immune‑related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(21): 2691– 2697. doi: 10.1200/ JCO.2012.41.6750.
6. Arenbergova M, Puzanov I. Mutace BRAF: nový přístup k cílené léčbě melanomu. Klin Onkol 2012; 25(5): 323– 328.
7. Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 2002; 417(6892): 949– 954.
8. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C et al. BRIM‑ 3 Study Group. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(26): 2507– 2516. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1103782.
9. Sosman JA, Kim KB, Schuchter L et al. Survival in BRAF V600- mutant advanced melanoma treated with vemurafenib. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(8): 707– 714. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1112302.
10. Chapman PB. Mechanisms of resistance to RAF inhibition in melanomas harboring a BRAF mutation. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2013. doi: 10.1200/ EdBook_AM.2013.33.e80.
11. Sanchez‑ Laorden B, Viros A, Girotti MR et al. BRAF inhibitors induce metastasis in RAS mutant or inhibitor‑resistant melanoma cells by reactivating MEK and ERK signaling. Sci Signal 2014; 7(318): ra30. doi: 10.1126/ scisignal.2004815.
12. Sinha R, Edmonds K, Newton‑ Bishop JA. Cutaneous adverse events associated with vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma: practical advice on diagnosis, prevention and management of the main treatment‑related skin toxicities. Br J Dermatol 2012; 167(5): 987– 994. doi: 10.1111/ bjd.12010.
13. Sinha R, Larkin J, Fearfield L. Clinical resolution of vemurafenib‑induced squamous cell carcinoma with topical 5- fluorouracil. Br J Dermatol 2014. In press 2014. doi: 10.1111/ bjd.13415.
14. Montagut C, Settleman J. Targeting the RAF‑ MEK‑ ERK pathway in cancer therapy. Cancer Lett 2009; 283(2): 125– 134. doi: 10.1016/ j.canlet.2009.01.022.
15. Flaherty KT, Robert C, Hersey P et al. Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF‑ mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(2): 107– 114. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1203421.
16. Grimaldi AM, Simeone E, Ascierto PA. The role of MEK inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2014; 26(2): 196– 203. doi: 10.1097/ CCO.0000000000000050.
17. Melosky B, Burkes R, Rayson D et al. Management of skin rash during EGFR‑ targeted monoclonal antibody treatment for gastrointestinal malignancies: Canadian recommendations. Curr Oncol 2009; 16(1): 16– 26.
18. Curran MA, Montalvo W, Yagita H et al. PD‑ 1 and CTLA‑ 4 combination blockade expands infiltrating T cells and reduces regulatory T and myeloid cells within B16 melanoma tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107(9): 4275– 4280. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.0915174107.
19. Ribas A. Tumor immunotherapy directed at PD‑ 1. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(26): 2517– 2519. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMe1205943.
20. Barber DL, Wherry EJ, Masopust D et al. Restoring function in exhausted CD8 T cells during chronic viral infection. Nature 2006; 439(7077): 682– 687.
21. Taube JM, Anders RA, Young GD et al. Colocalization of inflammatory response with B7- h1 expression in human melanocytic lesions supports an adaptive resistance mechanism of immune escape. Sci Transl Med 2012; 4(127): 127–137. doi: 10.1126/ scitranslmed.3003689.
22. Okazaki T, Honjo T. PD‑ 1 and PD‑ 1 ligands: from discovery to clinical application. Int Immunol 2007; 19(7): 813– 824.
23. Latchman Y, Wood CR, Chernova T et al. PD‑ L2 is a second ligand for PD‑ 1 and inhibits T cell activation. Nat Immunol 2001; 2(3): 261– 268.
24. Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti‑PD‑ 1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(26): 2443– 2454. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1200690.
25. Ribas A, Hodi S, Kefford R et al. Efficacy and safety of the anti‑PD‑ 1 monoclonal antibody MK‑ 3475 in 411 patients (pts) with melanoma (MEL). J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (Suppl ): abstr. LBA 9000.
26. Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(18): 1694– 1703. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1210093.
27. ClinicalTrials‑ gov [homepage on the Internet]. coBRIM: a phase 3 study comparing GDC‑ 0973 (cobimetinib), a MEK inhibitor, in combination with vemurafenib vs vemurafenib alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. Available from: http:/ / clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/ show/ NCT01689519?term=cobimetinib&rank=3.
28. Selby M, Engelhardt J, Lu L‑ S et al. Antitumor activity of concurrent blockade of immune checkpoint molecules CTLA‑ 4 and PD‑ 1 in preclinical models. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (Suppl): abstr. 3061.
29. Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MK et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2013; 369(2): 122– 133. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1302369.
30. Mskcc.org [homepage on the Internet]. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. A phase I/ II study of nivolumab alone and with ipilimumab in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Available from: http:/ / www.mskcc.org/ cancer‑ care/ trial/ 13- 187.
31. ClinicalTrials.gov [homepage on the Internet]. Study of nivolumab (BMS‑ 936558) in combination with gemcitabine/ cisplatin, pemetrexed/ cisplatin, carboplatin/ paclitaxel, bevacizumab maintenance, erlotinib, ipilimumab or as monotherapy in subjects with stage iiib/ iv non‑small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Available from: http:/ / clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/ show/ NCT01454102.
32. Hauschild A, Grob JJ, Demidov LV et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF‑ mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open‑ label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 380(9839): 358– 365. doi: 10.1016/ S0140‑ 6736(12)60868‑ X.
33. McArthur GA, Chapman PB, Robert C et al. Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) mutation‑ positive melanoma (BRIM‑ 3): extended follow‑up of a phase 3, randomised, open‑ label study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15(3): 323– 332. doi: 10.1016/ S1470‑ 2045(14)70012‑ 9.
Štítky
Paediatric clinical oncology Surgery Clinical oncologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Clinical Oncology
2014 Číslo 6
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole in perioperative treatment in children under 14 years – results of a questionnaire survey from practice
- Current Insights into the Antispasmodic and Analgesic Effects of Metamizole on the Gastrointestinal Tract
- Obstacle Called Vasospasm: Which Solution Is Most Effective in Microsurgery and How to Pharmacologically Assist It?
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Adverse Effects of Modern Treatment of Malignant Melanoma and their Treatment/ Management
- Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the Czech Republic
- Subependymal Giant Cell Astrocytoma Associated with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex – Pharmacological Treatment using mTOR Inhibitors
- Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Localized Scleroderma