What makes UpToDate so powerful?

  • over 11000 topics
  • 22 specialties
  • 5,700 physician authors
  • evidence-based recommendations
See more sample topics
Find Patient Print
0 Find synonyms

Find synonyms Find exact match

Adjuvant therapy for cutaneous melanoma
UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
Adjuvant therapy for cutaneous melanoma
View in Chinese
All topics are updated as new evidence becomes available and our peer review process is complete.
Literature review current through: Sep 2017. | This topic last updated: Sep 20, 2017.

INTRODUCTION — Surgical excision is the treatment of choice for early cutaneous melanoma and is curative in most cases. However, some patients will subsequently relapse with disseminated disease. High-risk features in the primary tumor and regional lymph node metastasis define patient subsets that are at increased risk for recurrent disease.

The use of immunotherapy and targeted therapy as adjuvant treatment for high-risk melanoma will be reviewed here. The initial management of cutaneous melanoma and the management of patients with metastatic disease are discussed separately. (See "Initial surgical management of melanoma of the skin and unusual sites" and "Overview of the management of advanced cutaneous melanoma".)

GENERAL APPROACH TO ADJUVANT THERAPY

Staging, tumor characteristics, and prognosis — For patients who have undergone a complete resection of a cutaneous melanoma, the decision of whether or not to recommend adjuvant therapy depends upon the risk of disease recurrence, based upon the stage at diagnosis, along with a consideration of patient age, comorbidity, and personal preferences.

The extent and characteristics of the primary tumor and regional lymph node involvement allow classification of patients into different risk categories. The tumor, nodes, metastasis (TNM) staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) (table 1A-B and table 2A-B) incorporates the most important determinants of prognosis [1,2]. In addition, the mutation status of the primary tumor may influence the choice of specific adjuvant therapy. (See "Tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging system and other prognostic factors in cutaneous melanoma".)

For the primary tumor (T), increasing tumor thickness, an increased mitotic rate, and the presence of ulceration (ie, the loss of the epidermal layer overlying the primary tumor) are associated with an increased risk of relapse (figure 1).

The presence of lymph node involvement is associated with a significant increase in risk of recurrence, and this is further subdivided based upon the number and extent of lymph node disease (figure 2).

The presence of a characteristic BRAF V600 mutation in the primary tumor may allow use of adjuvant targeted therapy rather than adjuvant immunotherapy.

Specific recommendations regarding the use of adjuvant therapy are summarized in this section for different risk groups. The clinical trial supporting data are discussed below.

Low-risk patients — The majority of patients diagnosed with melanoma present with stage I or IIA disease (≤2 mm in thickness with ulceration, or localized tumor ≤4 mm in thickness without ulceration). In patients without lymph node involvement on sentinel lymph node biopsy, surgery is usually curative, and adjuvant therapy is not indicated except in the context of a formal clinical trial [3].

High-risk node-negative (stage IIB or IIC) disease — Patients without lymph node involvement but with high-risk features in their primary tumor are at increased risk for recurrence and disease dissemination. High-risk primary tumors include those that are >4 mm thick, or >2 mm thick with ulceration. High-risk node-negative patients were excluded from the phase III clinical trials evaluating ipilimumab, nivolumab, and targeted therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib [4-6].

Options in this setting include both observation and high-dose interferon alfa (IFNa). Adjuvant therapy with checkpoint inhibitors or with targeted agents is not currently approved for patients with high-risk node-negative disease.

High-risk stage III disease — For patients who have had a complete resection of stage III melanoma, recommendations regarding adjuvant therapy are based upon the extent of lymph node involvement:

For patients with macroscopic lymph node involvement, multiple lymph nodes involved, or a single node with >1 mm of microscopic disease, enrollment in a clinical trial evaluating a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor is the preferred approach. Ipilimumab (using the 10 mg/kg schedule) is an appropriate alternative when clinical trial participation is not feasible. Although no data are yet available on PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting, these agents (alone or in combination with ipilimumab) are significantly more effective than single-agent ipilimumab in the metastatic disease setting. (See 'Efficacy and toxicity' below and "Immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with immune checkpoint inhibition", section on 'Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies' and "Immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with immune checkpoint inhibition", section on 'Combined anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 immunotherapy'.)

Patients with microscopic involvement of ≤1 mm in a single lymph node were excluded from the ipilimumab trial. In this setting, high-dose IFNa or observation is an option. Ipilimumab is not currently approved for those with stage IIIA (<1 mm) disease. (See 'Interferon alfa' below.)

CHECKPOINT INHIBITOR IMMUNOTHERAPY — Checkpoint inhibition has represented an important advance in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. These results have led to the evaluation of these agents and the approval of ipilimumab in the adjuvant setting for patients at high risk for recurrence following initial surgery. (See "Principles of cancer immunotherapy" and "Immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with immune checkpoint inhibition", section on 'Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies'.)

Ipilimumab, which targets cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated molecule 4 (CTLA-4), is approved for use in the adjuvant setting based upon a phase III trial in patients with stage IIIB or IIIC disease that demonstrated improved disease-free and overall survival compared with interferon alfa. (See 'Ipilimumab' below.)

Nivolumab, which targets programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), has demonstrated significant improved relapse-free survival (RFS) and decreased toxicity compared with ipilimumab in a large phase III trial. (See 'Nivolumab' below.)

Pembrolizumab, which also targets PD-1, is currently being evaluated in two large phase III trials. (See 'Pembrolizumab' below.)

Nivolumab — Nivolumab prolonged RFS while reducing toxicity in a phase III clinical trial in which 906 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every two weeks for one year) or ipilimumab (10 mg/kg every three weeks for four doses, and then every twelve weeks for up to one year) [5].

All patients had undergone a complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease within 12 weeks prior to randomization. Patients with ocular melanoma were excluded, as were patients using systemic corticosteroids or those who had received prior systemic therapy for melanoma. Patients with acral and mucosal melanoma were allowed. Overall, 29 percent of patients had microscopic nodal involvement, while 71 percent had either macroscopic lymph node disease or resected stage IV disease. BRAF mutations were present in 42 percent, absent in 45 percent, and not determined in 4 percent.

Recurrence-free survival, the primary endpoint of the trial, was significantly increased with nivolumab compared with ipilimumab (at 12 months, 70.5 versus 60.8 percent, and at 18 months, 66.4 versus 52.7 percent; hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83). A similar benefit was seen with nivolumab both in those with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥5 percent and those with PD-L1 expression <5 percent.

A similar degree of improvement with nivolumab was seen in the prespecified major subgroups, including stage III versus stage IV disease, the presence or absence of ulceration, the extent of lymph node involvement (microscopic versus macroscopic), PD-L1 status, and BRAF mutation status.

Toxicity was significantly decreased with nivolumab, with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events reported in 14 percent of patients treated with nivolumab versus 46 percent of those assigned to ipilimumab.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were less frequent with nivolumab compared with ipilimumab (4 versus 30 percent).

Additional follow-up will be required to assess the impact on overall survival.

Pembrolizumab — A phase III trial comparing pembrolizumab with placebo has completed accrual for patients with high-risk stage III melanoma following complete resection (NCT02362594). Results are pending. A phase III cooperative group trial (NCT02506153, Southwest Oncology Group S1404) comparing pembrolizumab with high-dose interferon or high-dose ipilimumab is ongoing in patients with high-risk stage III or IVA disease following complete resection.

Ipilimumab — The use of ipilimumab as an adjuvant for resected high-risk melanoma was based upon the results of a phase III trial in which ipilimumab significantly decreased the rate of recurrence and improved overall survival compared with placebo. Although there are no results directly comparing ipilimumab with interferon alfa (IFNa), the magnitude of the overall survival benefit with ipilimumab (on the 10 mg/kg schedule) made this the preferred agent for patients with stage III disease.

Efficacy and toxicity — In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 trial, 951 patients were randomly assigned to either ipilimumab or placebo [4,7]. All patients had stage III melanoma, and 80 percent had stage IIIB or IIIC disease. The other 20 percent had stage IIIA disease with melanoma >1 mm diameter in the sentinel lymph node.

Treatment with ipilimumab was given at a dose of 10 mg/kg every three weeks for four doses, then every three months for three years unless toxicity or relapse prevented its continuation. Placebo was given on the same schedule.

The primary endpoint of the trial was RFS; overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were secondary endpoints. Results were updated at a median follow-up of 5.3 years [7]:

RFS was significantly better with ipilimumab compared with placebo (five-year RFS 40.8 versus 30.3 percent, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.89).

DMFS was significantly better with ipilimumab (five-year DMFS 48.3 versus 38.9 percent, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.92).

Overall survival was significantly prolonged with ipilimumab (five-year overall survival 65.4 versus 54.4 percent, HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.88, p = 0.001). This benefit was seen despite the use of various systemic therapies in patients who subsequently developed recurrent disease.

Toxicity associated with adjuvant ipilimumab was significant. Adverse events of any grade were observed in 98.7 percent of patients treated with ipilimumab, including 54.1 with grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse effects occurred in 41.6 percent of patients and led to treatment discontinuation or, rarely, death. (See "Toxicities associated with checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy".)

The most common immune-related adverse events included dermatologic, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and hepatic toxicity (grade 3 or higher in 4.2, 16.8, 7.8, and 10.9 percent of patients, respectively).

There were five treatment-related deaths in patients treated with ipilimumab (three due to colitis, one to myocarditis, and one to multiorgan failure associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome).

Quality of life was assessed using the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0 (QLQ-C30) [8]. There was a statistically significant decrement in global health status both during and after induction therapy, but the difference did not exceed the clinically relevant threshold.

Dose of ipilimumab — Based upon the initially reported results of the EORTC 18071 trial [4], ipilimumab was approved at a dose of 10 mg/kg for use as an adjuvant. The dose used in that trial (10 mg/kg) is different from the dose used for metastatic disease (3 mg/kg) and is associated with increased toxicity. However, in patients with metastatic disease, ipilimumab on the 10 mg/kg schedule has been shown to produce a superior three-year overall survival rate compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (31 versus 23 percent) in patients with stage IV disease [9]. (See "Immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with immune checkpoint inhibition", section on 'Dose and schedule'.)

A second phase III trial in the adjuvant setting is comparing ipilimumab at one of two doses (the 10 mg/kg dose or 3 mg/kg dose) with high-dose IFN (E-1609, NCT01274338). It has overall survival and RFS as coprimary endpoints.

An unplanned exploratory analysis of the E-1609 trial was presented at the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting [10]. This was based on a 3.1 year follow-up of 773 concurrently randomized patients treated with ipilimumab at either 3 or 10 mg/kg. Toxicity was lower with the 3 mg/kg schedule compared with the 10 mg/kg schedule (all grade 3-4 adverse events 36.6 versus 56.5 percent and grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events 18.8 versus 34.0 percent). There was no difference in the three-year RFS (42.3 and 42.6 percent, respectively, HR 1.0), but longer follow-up is required.

Therefore, until more data are available to support equivalent results in the adjuvant setting, the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg regimen is preferred over the lower-dose regimen that is approved for patients with distant metastases.

Interferon versus ipilimumab — There currently are no data from randomized trials comparing ipilimumab with IFNa.

The phase III trial comparing ipilimumab with placebo demonstrated an improvement in RFS, DMFS, and overall survival similar to what has been reported in high-dose IFN trials (ECOG 1684 and Intergroup E1694) [11-13]. However, the benefit with ipilimumab on overall survival was seen despite the potentially confounding use of various systemic therapies with proven benefits on overall survival in patients who subsequently developed recurrent disease. Approximately one-half of patients who relapsed received either a BRAF inhibitor or additional checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Further, the convenience and general tolerability of the ipilimumab regimen are superior to that of the high-dose IFN regimen.

TARGETED THERAPY — For patients with metastatic melanoma and a BRAF V600 driver mutation, treatment targeting the mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase pathway with a combination of a BRAF inhibitor and a MEK inhibitor is an important treatment option. These results have led to the evaluation of this approach in the adjuvant setting. (See "Molecularly targeted therapy for metastatic melanoma", section on 'BRAF-mutated tumors'.)

Dabrafenib plus trametinib — In a phase III trial, 870 patients with completely resected BRAF V600 mutation-positive stage III melanoma were randomly assigned to the combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice a day) plus trametinib (2 mg once a day) or to matching placebos for one year [6].

At a median follow-up of 2.8 years (minimum 2.5 years), results included the following:

Relapse-free survival, the primary endpoint of the trial, was significantly longer with dabrafenib plus trametinib compared with placebo (three-year rate 58 versus 39 percent, HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.58).

Overall survival was prolonged with the targeted therapy (three-year rate 86 versus 77 percent, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.79).

Vemurafenib — In a phase III trial, 498 patients were randomly assigned to vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or placebo for one year [14]. All patients had completely resected stage IIC or III melanoma.

Disease-free survival was significantly prolonged with vemurafenib (median not reached versus 25.8 months with placebo, hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.85). On subset evaluation, benefit appeared to be limited to patients with stages II, IIIA, and IIIB, and was not significant in those with stage IIIC disease.

INTERFERON ALFA — Prior to the development of ipilimumab checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy, high-dose interferon alfa (IFNa) was the only option for adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma that had demonstrated an improvement in overall survival. Approaches to improve the therapeutic index of high-dose IFNa have included the use of pegylated IFN, the combination of IFNa with various chemotherapy regimens, and the use of low or intermediate doses of IFNa [15-20]. However, none of these approaches were shown to be superior to high-dose IFNa in terms of overall survival.

High-dose IFNa — The use of high-dose IFNa is supported by the results of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 1684 and Intergroup E1694 trials, as well as a meta-analysis that included results from trials with various schedules and doses of IFNa [21].

ECOG 1684 — In the ECOG trial (ECOG 1684), 287 patients with melanomas >4 mm in depth (stage IIB), or subclinical or clinically apparent regional node involvement (stage III) were randomly assigned to one year of high-dose IFNa-2b or close observation [13]. The IFNa treatment schedule consisted of intravenous therapy at a dose of 20 million units/m2 five days per week for four weeks, followed by 10 million units/m2 subcutaneously three times weekly for an additional 11 months.

At a median follow-up of nearly seven years, the following statistically significant benefits were noted with IFNa:

A nine-month prolongation in relapse-free survival (RFS; median 1.7 versus 1 years), with an 11 percent absolute increase in RFS at five years (37 versus 26 percent).

A one-year prolongation in median survival (3.8 versus 2.8 years), with a 9 percent absolute increase in survival at five years (46 versus 37 percent).

In a subsequent analysis, the improvement in overall survival was no longer statistically significant [12]. Treatment benefit appeared to be confined to patients with lymph node involvement, with a doubling of RFS in these subgroups. Although patients without nodal involvement (T4NO stage IIB (table 1A-B)) did not appear to benefit, there were too few patients in this subgroup to make any meaningful assessment.

Intergroup E1694 — Intergroup E1694 trial compared high-dose IFNa-2b with the GM2-KLH vaccine in resected stage IIB and III melanoma patients, the same population studied in ECOG 1684 and 1690 [11]. The trial was closed prematurely when interim analysis disclosed significantly worse RFS and overall survival for patients treated with the GM2-KLH vaccine compared with high-dose IFNa (hazard ratio [HR] 1.47 and 1.52, respectively).

The general interpretation of this trial was that the GM2-KLH vaccine was no worse than observation and that the vaccine thus served as a control group for the high-dose IFNa. A subsequent trial found that the vaccine did not improve or significantly hinder overall survival compared with observation alone.

Toxicity — Administration of adjuvant high-dose IFNa is associated with numerous adverse effects, including acute constitutional symptoms, chronic fatigue, myelosuppression, and neurologic and psychologic effects, which are experienced to some degree by the majority of patients (table 3) [22].

Granulocytopenia occurs in the majority of patients and may be severe enough in 20 to 60 percent to warrant dose modification. Infections are uncommon, suggesting a different mechanism of myelosuppression than that seen with cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Liver toxicity resulted in two early deaths in ECOG 1684 but has not been a cause of death in the United States cooperative group trials since vigilant monitoring and dose modification guidelines were mandated.

Fatigue is common and was present in 70 to 100 percent of patients in large trials. Fatigue can increase in severity with duration of therapy and can be debilitating.

Mild to moderate depression and impaired cognitive function are commonly reported, while mood instability (alternating mania and depression) occurs less often. A history of mood or psychiatric disorders is a risk factor for neuropsychiatric effects. The use of antidepressants (either therapeutically or prophylactically) may facilitate completion of the full planned course of therapy.

Thyroid dysfunction (both hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism) may appear during the course of IFNa therapy. It typically is autoimmune in nature and usually resolves within 6 to 12 months of stopping treatment. Studies suggest that thyroid dysfunction may be associated with a significantly enhanced chance of therapeutic benefit.

Patients should be monitored closely during therapy. During the initial four-week induction period with IFNa, this should include weekly blood counts, liver function tests, and metabolic panels. These should then be repeated on a monthly basis for patients being treated on the high-dose IFNa regimen.

The majority of these effects can be managed with appropriate supportive care and/or dose reduction if toxicity is severe [22]. Most adverse reactions resolve with treatment discontinuation. However, a high-dose IFNa regimen for one year can be associated with significant side effects. Significant toxicities include hepatotoxicity, fatigue, depression, and autoimmune phenomena, particularly affecting the thyroid. The incidence of key toxicities is summarized in the table (table 3).

Pegylated interferon alfa — Pegylated IFNa was developed to decrease the frequency with which IFNa is administered while maintaining a high level of exposure. Pegylated IFNa was evaluated as an adjuvant following primary resection of melanoma in two phase III trials.

In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18991 trial in patients with stage III melanoma, there was no difference in overall survival, although the seven-year RFS was significantly increased with pegylated IFNa compared with observation [23]. This trial led to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of pegylated IFNa for adjuvant treatment of patients with stage IIIA melanoma.

In a second trial in patients with high-risk disease, there was no significant difference in the five-year distant metastasis-free survival, disease-free survival, or overall survival [24].

Based on this information and its FDA approval, pegylated IFNa is an alternative option to standard high-dose IFN for adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage III melanoma. However, given their overall survival benefits, either ipilimumab or high-dose IFN would be preferable treatments.

CLINICAL TRIAL PARTICIPATION — Currently, ipilimumab (on the 10 mg/kg schedule) and interferon alfa are the only agents approved for use as an adjuvant for patients at high risk of recurrence with cutaneous melanoma.

Rapid advances with other forms of immunotherapy and with molecularly targeted therapy (for those with a V600 BRAF mutation) have led to important advances in the management of metastatic disease. Clinical trials have demonstrated improved relapse-free survival, overall survival, and/or enhanced tolerability with nivolumab, ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg, and dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant therapy; however, these approaches have not been approved for this indication.

Multiple clinical trials for adjuvant therapy are currently in progress or in the planning stages with these and other promising approaches, and clinical trial participation (ClinicalTrials.gov) should be considered whenever possible.

OTHER EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES — Alternative approaches that have been studied as an adjuvant following surgical resection include:

Biochemotherapy – Intensive biochemotherapy was evaluated as an alternative to high-dose interferon alfa (IFNa) in a phase III cooperative group trial (S0008) and may constitute an alternative to high-dose IFNa in carefully selected patients [16]. The trial randomly assigned 432 patients with high-risk melanoma to either three cycles of cisplatin, vinblastine, dacarbazine, interleukin-2 (IL-2), and IFNa given over a nine-week period or to high-dose IFNa for one year.

At a median follow-up of 7.2 years, the biochemotherapy regimen significantly prolonged relapse-free survival (RFS; median 4.0 versus 1.9 years and five-year RFS rate 48 versus 39 percent, hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.97). However, there was no significant difference in overall survival (five-year rate 56 percent for both treatment arms, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74-1.31). The toxicity profiles of the two regimens differed substantially. For the biochemotherapy regimen, grade 3 or 4 toxicity was observed in 76 percent of cases and consisted primarily of hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicity. Neurologic, psychiatric, and hepatic toxicities were the most frequent with high-dose IFNa. Biochemotherapy toxicities were limited to the nine-week treatment period, while IFNa toxicities were distributed across the year of treatment.

Bevacizumab – In a phase III trial in which 1343 patients with stage IIB, IIC, or III disease were randomly assigned to one year of bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg every three weeks) or observation, there was a statistically significant increase in the disease-free interval [25,26]. However, there was no significant difference in overall survival, the primary endpoint of the trial, at a median follow-up of six years.

GM-CSF – Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) failed to demonstrate a benefit in a multicenter trial in 815 patients with high-risk stage III or completely resected stage IV melanoma [27]. There was no statistically significant difference in either overall survival or RFS compared with placebo. There was also no benefit associated with the use of the peptide vaccine.

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS — UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, "The Basics" and "Beyond the Basics." The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5th to 6th grade reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and who prefer short, easy-to-read materials. Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are longer, more sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10th to 12th grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are comfortable with some medical jargon.

Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on a variety of subjects by searching on "patient info" and the keyword(s) of interest.)

Beyond the Basics topics (see "Patient education: Melanoma treatment; localized melanoma (Beyond the Basics)" and "Patient education: Melanoma treatment; advanced or metastatic melanoma (Beyond the Basics)")

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients who have undergone a definitive resection of cutaneous melanoma generally do well. However, subsets of patients at increased risk of recurrence can be defined based upon the characteristics of the primary tumor (thickness, mitotic rate, ulceration) or the presence of lymph node metastases. Patients should be enrolled in formal clinical trials whenever feasible. (See 'General approach to adjuvant therapy' above.)

For patients at high risk for recurrence following definitive resection of cutaneous melanoma, participation in a formal clinical trial is preferred. Options include trials evaluating an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), an immunotherapy combination, or molecularly targeted agents (if a BRAF mutation is present). If clinical trial participation is not feasible, we suggest ipilimumab (using the 10 mg/kg schedule) rather than interferon alfa (IFNa) (Grade 2B). (See 'High-risk stage III disease' above and 'Ipilimumab' above and 'Interferon versus ipilimumab' above.)

Although there currently are no data on the use of anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors in an adjuvant setting, these agents have significantly prolonged overall survival compared with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic disease. These agents are not approved as adjuvant therapy, but their use should be considered in the context of a formal clinical trial. (See 'Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy' above and "Immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with immune checkpoint inhibition", section on 'Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies'.)

For patients with a BRAF V600 mutation, adjuvant therapy with molecularly targeted therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib) significantly prolonged overall survival compared with placebo. However, this regimen is not approved for adjuvant therapy, and its use should be restricted to the clinical trial setting. (See 'Dabrafenib plus trametinib' above.)

While adjuvant ipilimumab is approved at a dose of 10 mg/kg every three weeks for four doses, followed by ipilimumab every three months for three years in the absence of serious toxicity or progressive disease, this dose is more toxic and not definitively more effective than 3 mg/kg every three weeks for four doses, which is the schedule used in patients with metastatic disease. While stronger evidence supports the use of the 10 mg/kg dose, there are currently inadequate data to require the selection of this dose over the 3 mg/kg dose in the adjuvant setting. (See 'Dose of ipilimumab' above.)

Patients with stage III disease but ≤1 mm involvement of a single lymph node were excluded from the phase III trial that established the efficacy of ipilimumab. Adjuvant immunotherapy with high-dose IFNa, and observation are options in this setting. (See 'High-risk stage III disease' above and 'Interferon alfa' above.)

Patients at increased risk of recurrence with stage II melanoma (primary tumor >4 mm, or >2 mm with ulceration) were also excluded from the phase III ipilimumab trial. Clinical trial enrollment or adjuvant immunotherapy with high-dose IFNa can be considered in this setting. (See 'High-risk node-negative (stage IIB or IIC) disease' above and 'Interferon alfa' above.)

For patients at low risk of recurrence (no lymph node involvement and tumor ≤4 mm in thickness without ulceration or ≤2 mm in thickness with ulceration, stage IIA (table 1A-B and table 2A-B)), there is a high probability of cure. There is no evidence that adjuvant therapy improves the prognosis, and adjuvant therapy is not indicated. (See 'Low-risk patients' above.)

Use of UpToDate is subject to the  Subscription and License Agreement.

REFERENCES

  1. Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:6199.
  2. Melanoma of the Skin. In: American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 7th, Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al (Eds), Springer, New York 2010. p.325.
  3. Kaufman HL, Kirkwood JM, Hodi FS, et al. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on tumour immunotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013; 10:588.
  4. Eggermont AM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob JJ, et al. Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:522.
  5. Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, et al. Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma. N Engl J Med 2017.
  6. Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III BRAF-Mutated Melanoma. N Engl J Med 2017.
  7. Eggermont AM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob JJ, et al. Prolonged Survival in Stage III Melanoma with Ipilimumab Adjuvant Therapy. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:1845.
  8. Coens C, Suciu S, Chiarion-Sileni V, et al. Health-related quality of life with adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): secondary outcomes of a multinational, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18:393.
  9. Ascierto PA, Del Vecchio M, Robert C, et al. Overall survival and safety results from a phase 3 trial of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg vs 10 mg/kg in patients with metastatic melanoma (abstract 11060). Presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2016 meeting.
  10. Tarhini AA, Lee SJ, Hodi FS, et al. A phase III randomized study of adjuvant ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) versus high-dose interferon alfa-2b for resected high-risk melanoma (U.S. Intergroup E1609): Preliminary safety and efficacy of the ipilimumab arms (abstract 9500). 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
  11. Kirkwood JM, Ibrahim JG, Sosman JA, et al. High-dose interferon alfa-2b significantly prolongs relapse-free and overall survival compared with the GM2-KLH/QS-21 vaccine in patients with resected stage IIB-III melanoma: results of intergroup trial E1694/S9512/C509801. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:2370.
  12. Kirkwood JM, Manola J, Ibrahim J, et al. A pooled analysis of eastern cooperative oncology group and intergroup trials of adjuvant high-dose interferon for melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10:1670.
  13. Kirkwood JM, Strawderman MH, Ernstoff MS, et al. Interferon alfa-2b adjuvant therapy of high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial EST 1684. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:7.
  14. Lewis K, Maio M, Demidov L, et al. BRIM8: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of adjuvant vemurafenib in patients with completely resected, BRAF V600+ melanoma at high risk for recurrence (abstract LBA7). Presented at the 2017 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting.
  15. Eggermont AM, Suciu S, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b versus observation alone in resected stage III melanoma: final results of EORTC 18991, a randomised phase III trial. Lancet 2008; 372:117.
  16. Flaherty LE, Othus M, Atkins MB, et al. Southwest Oncology Group S0008: a phase III trial of high-dose interferon Alfa-2b versus cisplatin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine, plus interleukin-2 and interferon in patients with high-risk melanoma--an intergroup study of cancer and leukemia Group B, Children's Oncology Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:3771.
  17. Eggermont AM, Suciu S, MacKie R, et al. Post-surgery adjuvant therapy with intermediate doses of interferon alfa 2b versus observation in patients with stage IIb/III melanoma (EORTC 18952): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366:1189.
  18. Grob JJ, Dreno B, de la Salmonière P, et al. Randomised trial of interferon alpha-2a as adjuvant therapy in resected primary melanoma thicker than 1.5 mm without clinically detectable node metastases. French Cooperative Group on Melanoma. Lancet 1998; 351:1905.
  19. Hauschild A, Weichenthal M, Rass K, et al. Efficacy of low-dose interferon {alpha}2a 18 versus 60 months of treatment in patients with primary melanoma of >= 1.5 mm tumor thickness: results of a randomized phase III DeCOG trial. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:841.
  20. Eggermont AM, Suciu S, Testori A, et al. Long-term results of the randomized phase III trial EORTC 18991 of adjuvant therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b versus observation in resected stage III melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:3810.
  21. Mocellin S, Pasquali S, Rossi CR, Nitti D. Interferon alpha adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102:493.
  22. Hauschild A, Gogas H, Tarhini A, et al. Practical guidelines for the management of interferon-alpha-2b side effects in patients receiving adjuvant treatment for melanoma: expert opinion. Cancer 2008; 112:982.
  23. Eggermont AM, Suciu S, Testori A, et al. Long-term results of the randomized phase III trial EORTC 18991 of adjuvant therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b versus observation in resected stage III melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:3810.
  24. Eigentler TK, Gutzmer R, Hauschild A, et al. Adjuvant treatment with pegylated interferon α-2a versus low-dose interferon α-2a in patients with high-risk melanoma: a randomized phase III DeCOG trial. Ann Oncol 2016; 27:1625.
  25. Corrie PG, Marshall A, Dunn JA, et al. Adjuvant bevacizumab in patients with melanoma at high risk of recurrence (AVAST-M): preplanned interim results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:620.
  26. Corrie P, Marshall A, Lorigan P, et al. Adjuvant bevacizumab as treatment for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: final results for the AVAST-M trial (abstract 9501). 2017 American Cancer Society Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
  27. Lawson DH, Lee S, Zhao F, et al. Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Yeast-Derived Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor (GM-CSF) Versus Peptide Vaccination Versus GM-CSF Plus Peptide Vaccination Versus Placebo in Patients With No Evidence of Disease After Complete Surgical Resection of Locally Advanced and/or Stage IV Melanoma: A Trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group (E4697). J Clin Oncol 2015; 33:4066.
Topic 7615 Version 52.0

Topic Outline

GRAPHICS

RELATED TOPICS

All topics are updated as new information becomes available. Our peer review process typically takes one to six weeks depending on the issue.