Skip to main content

NCCN Melanoma Guidelines: New Drugs, Less Testing

March 23, 2012 (Hollywood, Florida) — Information on 2 new systemic therapies for metastatic disease and a reduced emphasis on testing for metastases in early-stage disease headline the changes to the melanoma guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
The guidelines were discussed here at the NCCN 17th Annual Conference.
In his opening remarks to the NCCN audience, Daniel Coit, MD, from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, highlighted the recently approved vemurafenib (Zelboraf, Plexxikon/Roche) and ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb), calling them "very exciting new agents for the treatment of systemic disease."
Last year during the NCCN annual meeting, ipilimumab was on the cusp of being reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Upon its approval, it was integrated into the NCCN guidelines.
More recently, a footnote was added to the section in the guidelines on metastatic disease concerning the use of ipilimumab in patients who fail after an initial response to the therapy. "Reinduction with ipilimumab may be considered for select patients who experienced no significant toxicity during [previous] ipilimumab therapy and who relapse after initial clinical response or progress after stable disease [for more than] 3 months," reads the new guidance.
This guidance is not FDA indicated, Dr. Coit told Medscape Medical News at the meeting. However, the recommendation, which was unanimously supported by the melanoma panel, is based on observations from a clinical trial, he said.
John Thompson, MD, from the University of Washington and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, reviewed 2 registration trials of ipilimumab for the NCCN audience.
In the second-line therapy trial, patients receiving ipilimumab plus a peptide vaccine (glycoprotein 100) had a longer median survival than patients receiving the vaccine alone (10 vs 6.4 months; P < .001). In the first-line therapy trial, ipilimumab plus dacarbazine improved overall survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, compared with dacarbazine plus placebo. Specifically, overall survival was significantly longer in the ipilimumab group than in the placebo group (11.2 vs 9.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.72; P < .001).
Responses to ipilimumab "may be delayed," said Dr. Thompson. Therefore, clinicians should select patients for treatment who will have "sufficient" time to develop a response.
According to Dr. Thompson, immune-related adverse events are a concern with the immunotherapy, and it is "essential" for clinicians to take the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program for the drug. Nursing staff also need to be trained in the adverse events. It is advisable for patients to carry a wallet card in the event that they are taken to a hospital that is not familiar with ipilimumab.
The toxic effects associated with ipilimumab can in "most cases" be treated satisfactorily, Dr. Thompson said.
The NCCN guidelines now include vemurafenib as an option for patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma. Vemurafenib is "recommended for patients with V600 mutation of the BRAF gene."
"We are stressing the importance of screening metastatic melanoma patients for the presence of this mutation," said Dr. Coit.
The guidelines also alert clinicians to adverse events associated with the targeted therapy. "Vemurafenib has the potential for significant dermatologic complications, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and extreme photosensitivity. Regular dermatologic evaluation with referral to a dermatologist is clinically indicated. Patients should also be carefully monitored for the development of other adverse reactions, such as joint pain and swelling," according to the guidelines.
Dr. Thompson pointed out that vemurafenib provides a median survival of nearly 16 months, according to recently published data. He explained that this is "better than expected" in the pretreated population in that study.
Less Testing in Early-Stage Disease
Dr. Coit also reviewed the guidelines' recommendations for working-up patients with early-stage disease.
"We are working very hard to define subsets of patients at very low risk for either distant disease or nodal disease who should not undergo extensive staging procedures," he said.
In stage IB and IIA disease, routine imaging and lab tests are not recommended in the new guidance. For stage IIB and IIC disease, these are also not recommended, and chest x-ray is optional. In another bit of new guidance, sentinel lymph node biopsy is "generally not recommended" in these patients unless there are specific adverse features.
"We live in a culture of overtesting," summarized Dr. Coit about these changes, adding that the "yield is too low" to justify this work-up.
He reminded the audience that the value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage disease is limited to providing prognostic information and does not result in improved survival. "To date, sentinel lymph node biopsy is a staging procedure without any proven benefit on overall survival," said Dr. Coit.
Currently, there is an ongoing international phase 3 clinical trial, known as MSLT-II, that Dr. Coit believes is one of the most important trials in all of surgical oncology. It is designed to determine if, in patients with positive sentinel nodes (stage III), there is a survival benefit for completion lymph node dissection, compared with observation with nodal ultrasound.
Dr. Coit observed that one of the surprises in melanoma is that even when there is a positive lymph node, and thus stage III disease, the 5-year overall survival rate is about 80%, which is much higher than in other stage III cancers.
Dr. Thompson reports receiving research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Millennium.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 17th Annual Conference. Presented March 15, 2012.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...