Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34009481›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2021

Treatment Following Progression in Metastatic Melanoma: the State of the Art from Scientific Literature to Clinical Need.

F Serra, S Barruscotti, T Dominioni, A Zuccarini, P Pedrazzoli, S Chiellino

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F SerraMedical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
S BarruscottiDermatology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
T DominioniGeneral Surgery Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
A ZuccariniMedical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
P PedrazzoliMedical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
S ChiellinoMedical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy. silviachiellino@hotmail.it.
Policlinico San Matteo Fondazione · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the last few years, the advent of targeted therapy and immunotherapy has improved the management and the prognosis of metastatic melanoma, but the spread of resistance mechanisms can lead to disease progression. The clinical management in this setting can be challenging because the oncologist has to decide what is the best treatment strategy among therapy beyond progression (TBP), therapy change, and the rechallenge approach. This review of the relevant scientific literature is intended to clarify which patients with progressing metastatic melanoma will benefit from continuation of ongoing therapy and which ones will not. The data are based on a total of about 4300 patients coming from the main retrospective studies in the chosen field. The article body is divided into four sections which analyze respectively the targeted therapy beyond progression, the immunotherapy beyond progression, the possible treatment sequences, and finally the rechallenge strategy. RECENT

findingsDespite the possible approaches of TBP or rechallenge, the patient may not have an optimal response and may need new therapy, which is currently missing. To broaden the pharmacological offer in the fight against melanoma, cancer research is studying new disease targets, like the NRAS, PI3K, and cKIT pathways or combination treatment of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy. Despite the limitations of this work, mainly due to the limited number of studies, their retrospective nature and the lack of comparative studies, the analysis performed allows us to draw some important conclusions: therapy beyond progression, both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, represents a valid treatment option with positive effects on disease control and survival outcomes for patients with low clinical risk, expressed as low disease burden, normal LDH levels, and good performance status; moreover, the prognosis and quality of life of these patients improve when TBP is associated with locoregional treatments. In patients with progressive metastatic melanoma and high clinical risk (high disease burden, high LDH levels, and poor performance status), it is recommended to change therapy, without ever forgetting the possibility of enrolling the patient in a clinical trial. Finally, an efficacious treatment alternative is the rechallenge strategy; this approach consists in a re-treatment with the same drug after a variable interval of discontinuation. Preliminary studies seem to have demonstrated that patients retreated with targeted therapy achieved a greater benefit if they had a low clinical risk and if the drug doublet (BRAF + MEK inhibitors) was used. On the side of immunotherapy, the rechallenge strategy produced a major benefit in patients who prior experienced a severe toxic episode.

Indexed as

HumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsMelanomaMolecular Targeted TherapyNeoplasm MetastasisSkin NeoplasmsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmunotherapyRechallengeTargeted therapyTherapy changeTreatment beyond progression

Identifiers

PMID34009481
OpenAlexW3161534002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.