Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging Intensity and Survival Outcomes in High-Risk Resected Melanoma Treated by Systemic Therapy at Recurrence

  • Melanoma
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 22 May 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Intensive imaging in melanoma remains controversial because its survival impact is unknown. We investigated the impact of imaging intensity on the rates of asymptomatic surveillance-detected recurrence (ASDR) and subsequent treatment outcomes in patients with access to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapy (TT).

Methods

Patients with resected malignant melanoma undergoing imaging surveillance at a single center between 2006 and 2016 were identified. Surveillance and recurrence characteristics (imaging, symptom, treatment, and survival data) were retrospectively collected. Univariate (t test, Chi square test) and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted.

Results

Of 353 high-risk melanoma patients (stage IIB, 24%; IIC, 19%; IIIA, 27%; IIIB, 16%; IIIC, 14%), 71 (45%) had ASDR and 88 (55%) had symptomatic recurrence (SR). Shorter imaging intervals identified more ASDR (57%, 0–6 months; 34%, 6–12 months; 33%, > 12 months; p = 0.03). ASDR had better prognostic factors than SR [fewer than three metastatic sites (43 vs. 21%, p = 0.003), normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; 53 vs. 38%, p = 0.09), brain metastases (11 vs. 40%, p < 0.001)] and received more systemic treatment (72 vs. 49%, p = 0.003; ICIs 55 vs. 31%, p = 0.002; TT 8 vs. 13%, p = 0.41). ASDR had better survival outcomes on ICI treatment (2-year OS, 56 vs. 31%, p < 0.001). Median OS from surveillance start was 39.6 vs. 22.8 months (p < 0.001). ASDR was independently associated with survival (hazard ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.29–0.78, p = 0.003), adjusting for stage, sex, age, disease burden, LDH, era of recurrence, brain metastases, and ICI/TT treatment.

Conclusions

These real-world data support further study on intensified imaging surveillance protocols for high-risk resected melanoma, as ASDR was associated with superior survival outcomes from ICI therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 22 May 2020

    In the original article, the survival curves are missing in Fig.��1c, d.

References

  1. Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong S, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(36):6200–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Trotter SC, Sroa N, Winkelmann RR, et al. A global review of melanoma follow-up guidelines. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2013;6(9):8–26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cromwell KD, Ross MI, Xing Y, et al. Variability in melanoma post-treatment surveillance practices by country and physician specialty: a systematic review. Melanoma Res. 2012;22(5):1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Podlipnik S, Carrera C, Sanchez M, et al. Performance of diagnostic tests in an intensive follow-up protocol for patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stage IIB, IIC, and III localized primary melanoma: a prospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75(3):516–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Romano E, Scordo M, Dusza SW, et al. Site and timing of first relapse in stage III melanoma patients: implications for follow-up guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):3042–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Meyers MO, Yeh JJ, Frank J, et al. Method of detection of initial recurrence of stage II/III cutaneous melanoma: analysis of the utility of follow-up staging. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:941–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moore DK, Zhou Q, Panageas KS, et al. Methods of detection of first recurrence in patients with stage I/II primary cutaneous melanoma after sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(16):2206–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network®. NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2017 Melanoma. Plymouth Meeting, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc.; 2016.

  9. Rajagopal S, Souter LH, Baetz T, et al. Program in evidence-based care, cancer care Ontario (CCO) guideline 8–7: follow up of patients with cutaneous melanoma who were treated with curative intent. Toronto, ON: Cancer Care Ontario; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Garbe C, Paul A, Kohler-Spath H, et al. Prospective evaluation of a follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma patients: recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(3):520–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:711–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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;366:2443–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1345–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schachter J, Ribas A, Long GV, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006). Lancet. 2017;390:1853–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Long GV, Grob J-J, Nathan P, et al. Factors predictive of response, disease progression, and overall survival after dabrafenib and trametinib combination treatment: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(12):1743–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nishino M, Giobbie-Hurder A, Ramaiya NH, Hodi FS. Response assessment in metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab and bevacizumab: CT tumor size and density as markers for response and outcome. J Immunother Cancer. 2014;2:40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eggermont AMM, Chiarion-Sileni VC, Grob J-J, et al. Prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1845–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;377:1824–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Long GV, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1813–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, et al. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1789–801.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Swetter SM. Commentary: improved patient outcomes remain elusive after intensive imaging surveillance for high-risk melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75(3):525–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Koskivuo I, Kemppainen J, Giordano S, et al. Whole body PET/CT in the follow-up of asymptomatic patients with stage IIB-IIIB cutaneous melanoma. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(11):1355–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Faries M, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;276:2211–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leiter U, Stadler R, Mauch C, et al. Complete lymph node dissection versus no dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node biopsy positive melanoma (DeCOG-DLT): a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):757–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Park TS, Phan GQ, Yang JC, et al. Routine Computer tomography imaging for the detection of recurrences in high-risk melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(4):947–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lewin J, Sayers L, Kee D, et al. Surveillance imaging with FDG-PET/CT in the post-operative follow-up of stage 3 melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(7):1569–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sweeny CJ, Chen Y-H, Carducci M, et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:737–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. James ND, Sydes MR, Clarke NW, et al. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1163–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Long GV, Atkinson V, Menzies AM, et al. A randomized phase II study of nivolumab or nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in patients (pts) with melanoma brain metastases (mets): the anti-PD1 brain collaboration (ABC). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):9508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kirkwood JM, Long GV, Trefzer U, et al. BREAK-MB: a phase II study assessing overall intracranial response rates (OIRR) to dabrafenib (GSK2118436) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600E/k mutation-positive melanoma with brain metastases (mets). J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(Suppl 15):8501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tawbi HA, Forsyth PA, Algazi A, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in melanoma metastatic to the brain. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:722–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Pflugfelder A, Kochs C, Blum A, et al. Malignant melanoma S3-guideline “diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma”. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2013;11(Suppl 6):1–116.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Guillot B, Dalac S, Denis MG, et al. French updated recommendations in stage I to III melanoma treatment and management. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(4):594–602.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Dummer R, Hauschild A, Lindenblatt N, et al. Cutaenous melanoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(Suppl 5):v126–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. NICE. Melanoma: assessment and management. NICE 2018. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng14/chapter/1-Recommendations#follow-up-after-treatment-for-melanoma-2. Accessed 31 July 2018.

  36. American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). Melanoma: staging workup and followup recommendations. American Academy of Dermatology Association. 2018. Available at: https://www.aad.org/practicecenter/quality/clinical-guidelines/melanoma/staging-workup-and-followup. Accessed 31 July 2018.

  37. Babour A, Millward M, Morton R, Saw R. Cancer Guidelines Wiki: investigations and follow-up for melanoma patients. Cancer Council Australia (CCA); 2018. Available at: https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Guidelines:Investigations_and_Follow-up_for_Melanoma_Patients. Accessed 31 July 2018.

  38. BC Cancer Agency: Management: 6.4 Follow-up. Provincial Health Services Authority. 2018. Available at: http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/cancer-management-guidelines/skin/melanoma#Follow-up. Accessed 31 July 2018.

  39. Podlipnik S, Moreno-Ramírez D, Carrera C, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of imaging strategy for an intensive follow-up of patients with AJCC stage IIB, IIC and III malignant melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2018;180(5):1190–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Knackstedt RW, Knackstedt T, Gastman B. Gene expression profiling in melanoma: past results and future potential. Future Oncol. 2019;15(7):791–800.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. The Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Genomic classification of cutaneous melanoma. Cell. 2015;161(7):1681–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Haydu LE, Lo SN, McQuade JL, Amaria RN, Wargo J, Ross MI, et al. Cumulative incidence and predictors of CNS metastasis for patients with American joint committee on cancer 8th edition stage III melanoma. J Clin Oncol. Epub 28 Jan 2020 (JCO1901508).

Download references

Acknowledgement

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Therapeutics Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Andrea Marie Ibrahim MSc & Horia Marginean MD, MS

  2. Division of Internal Medicine, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Melanie Le May MD, MSc

  3. Division of Medical Oncology, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Dominick Bossé MD, MSc, MPH, FRCPC, Xinni Song MD, FRCPC & Michael Ong MD, FRCPC

  4. Division of General Surgery, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Carolyn Nessim MD, MSc, FRCSC, FACS

Authors
  1. Andrea Marie Ibrahim MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melanie Le May MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dominick Bossé MD, MSc, MPH, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Horia Marginean MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xinni Song MD, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carolyn Nessim MD, MSc, FRCSC, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Ong MD, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MO: Study conception and design, AMI, ML: Acquisition of data, MO, DB, HM: Analysis and interpretation of data, AMI, MO, ML: Manuscript Writing, MO, XS, DB, CN, HM: Critical revision, All authors read and final approval of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Ong MD, FRCPC.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

All authors read and approved the manuscript. This manuscript has not previously been published and is not currently under consideration for publication in any other journal. Michael Ong has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Roche/Genentech. Carolyn Nessim has received honoraria from Merck, EMD Serono and Novartis, and has been on an advisory board for Novartis. Xinni Song has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck. Dominick Bossé has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and AbbVie, and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Amgen and Janssen. Andrea Marie Ibrahim, Melanie Le May, and Horia Marginean declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 32234 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ibrahim, A.M., Le May, M., Bossé, D. et al. Imaging Intensity and Survival Outcomes in High-Risk Resected Melanoma Treated by Systemic Therapy at Recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 27, 3683–3691 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08407-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08407-8

Search

Navigation