Fifty years of progress in surgical oncology: Melanoma
Corresponding Author
Daniel G. Coit MD
Department of Surgery, Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
Correspondence Daniel G. Coit, MD, Department of Surgery, Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorCharlotte E. Ariyan MD, PhD
Department of Surgery, Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Daniel G. Coit MD
Department of Surgery, Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
Correspondence Daniel G. Coit, MD, Department of Surgery, Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorCharlotte E. Ariyan MD, PhD
Department of Surgery, Gastric and Mixed Tumor Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This paper outlines the scientific and clinical advances in the treatment of melanoma over the past 50 years. Among the highlights of progress, the dominant themes include evidence-based reduction in the extent and morbidity of surgical procedures in patients with local or regional melanoma without compromising end results, and the introduction of effective systemic therapy, specifically targeted therapy matched to patients based on specific tumor mutations, and immune checkpoint blockade. Management of advanced disease has also changed dramatically, due to improved understanding of the genomic variability of the disease as well as continuing improvements in imaging.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
N/a.
REFERENCES
- 1Balch CM. The role of elective lymph node dissection in melanoma: rationale, results, and controversies. J Clin Oncol. 1988; 6(1): 163-172.
- 2Shah JP, Goldsmith HS. Incontinuity versus discontinuous lymph node dissection for malignant melanoma. Cancer. 1970; 26(3): 610-614.
10.1002/1097-0142(197009)26:3<610::AID-CNCR2820260318>3.0.CO;2-# CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 3Jaques DP, Coit DG, Brennan MF. Major amputation for advanced malignant melanoma. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1989; 169(1): 1-6.
- 4Beckmann EC. CT scanning the early days. Br J Radiol. 2006; 79(937): 5-8.
- 5Mansfield P, Maudsley AA. Medical imaging by NMR. Br J Radiol. 1977; 50(591): 188-194.
- 6Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Adamus J, et al. Thin stage I primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Comparison of excision with margins of 1 or 3 cm. N Engl J Med. 1988; 318(18): 1159-1162.
- 7Veronesi U, Cascinelli N. Narrow excision (1-cm margin). A safe procedure for thin cutaneous melanoma. Arch Surg. 1991; 126(4): 438-441.
- 8Balch CM, Soong S, Ross MI, et al. Long-term results of a multi-institutional randomized trial comparing prognostic factors and surgical results for intermediate thickness melanomas (1.0 to 4.0 mm). Intergroup Melanoma Surgical Trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000; 7(2): 87-97.
- 9Cohn-Cedermark G, Rutqvist LE, Andersson R, et al. Long term results of a randomized study by the Swedish Melanoma Study Group on 2-cm versus 5-cm resection margins for patients with cutaneous melanoma with a tumor thickness of 0.8-2.0 mm. Cancer. 2000; 89(7): 1495-1501.
10.1002/1097-0142(20001001)89:7<1495::AID-CNCR12>3.0.CO;2-D CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 10Thomas JM, Newton-Bishop J, A'Hern R, et al. Excision margins in high-risk malignant melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(8): 757-766.
- 11Hayes AJ, Maynard L, Coombes G, et al. Wide versus narrow excision margins for high-risk, primary cutaneous melanomas: long-term follow-up of survival in a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(2): 184-192.
- 12Gillgren P, Drzewiecki KT, Niin M, et al. 2-cm versus 4-cm surgical excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm: a randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011; 378(9803): 1635-1642.
- 13Utjés D, Malmstedt J, Teras J, et al. 2-cm versus 4-cm surgical excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm: long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet. 2019; 394(10197): 471-477.
- 14Khayat D, Rixe O, Martin G, et al. Surgical margins in cutaneous melanoma (2 cm versus 5 cm for lesions measuring less than 2.1-mm thick). Cancer. 2003; 97(8): 1941-1946.
- 15Moncrieff MD, Gyorki D, Saw R, et al. 1 versus 2-cm excision margins for pT2-pT4 primary cutaneous melanoma (MelMarT): a feasibility study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(9): 2541-2549.
- 16Sim FH, Taylor WF, Ivins JC, Pritchard DJ, Soule EH. A prospective randomized study of the efficacy of routine elective lymphadenectomy in management of malignant melanoma. Preliminary results. Cancer. 1978; 41(3): 948-956.
10.1002/1097-0142(197803)41:3<948::AID-CNCR2820410324>3.0.CO;2-Z CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 17Veronesi U, Adamus J, Bandiera DC, et al. Delayed regional lymph node dissection in stage I melanoma of the skin of the lower extremities. Cancer. 1982; 49(11): 2420-2430.
10.1002/1097-0142(19820601)49:11<2420::AID-CNCR2820491133>3.0.CO;2-2 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 18Cascinelli N, Morabito A, Santinami M, MacKie RM, Belli F. Immediate or delayed dissection of regional nodes in patients with melanoma of the trunk: a randomised trial. WHO Melanoma Programme. Lancet. 1998; 351(9105): 793-796.
- 19Balch CM, Soong SJ, Bartolucci AA, et al. Efficacy of an elective regional lymph node dissection of 1 to 4 mm thick melanomas for patients 60 years of age and younger. Ann Surg. 1996; 224(3): 255-263.
- 20Riveros M, Garcia R, Cabañas R. Lymphadenography of the dorsal lymphatics of the penis. Technique and results. Cancer. 1967; 20(11): 2026-2031.
10.1002/1097-0142(196711)20:11<2026::AID-CNCR2820201132>3.0.CO;2-O CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 21Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg. 1992; 127(4): 392-399.
- 22Gershenwald JE, Thompson W, Mansfield PF, et al. Multi-institutional melanoma lymphatic mapping experience: the prognostic value of sentinel lymph node status in 612 stage I or II melanoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17(3): 976-983.
- 23Dessureault S, Soong SJ, Ross MI, et al. Improved staging of node-negative patients with intermediate to thick melanomas (>1 mm) with the use of lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001; 8(10): 766-770.
- 24Balch CM, Soong SJ, Atkins MB, et al. An evidence-based staging system for cutaneous melanoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004; 54(3): 131-149.
- 25Wong SL, Brady MS, Busam KJ, Coit DG. Results of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with thin melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13(3): 302-309.
- 26Ferrone CR, Panageas KS, Busam K, Brady MS, Coit DG. Multivariate prognostic model for patients with thick cutaneous melanoma: importance of sentinel lymph node status. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002; 9(7): 637-645.
- 27Morton DL, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Final trial report of sentinel-node biopsy versus nodal observation in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(7): 599-609.
- 28Faries MB, Thompson JF, Cochran AJ, et al. Completion dissection or observation for sentinel-node metastasis in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(23): 2211-2222.
- 29Leiter U, Stadler R, Mauch C, et al. Final analysis of DeCOG-SLT trial: no survival benefit for complete lymph node dissection in patients with melanoma with positive sentinel node. J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37(32): 3000-3008.
- 30Mann GB, Coit DG. Does the extent of operation influence the prognosis in patients with melanoma metastatic to inguinal nodes? Ann Surg Oncol. 1999; 6(3): 263-271.
- 31Sosman JA, Moon J, Tuthill RJ, et al. A phase 2 trial of complete resection for stage IV melanoma: results of Southwest Oncology Group Clinical Trial S9430. Cancer. 2011; 117(20): 4740-4746.
- 32Korn EL, Liu PY, Lee SJ, et al. Meta-analysis of phase II cooperative group trials in metastatic stage IV melanoma to determine progression-free and overall survival benchmarks for future phase II trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(4): 527-534.
- 33Howard JH, Thompson JF, Mozzillo N, et al. Metastasectomy for distant metastatic melanoma: analysis of data from the first Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-I). Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19(8): 2547-2555.
- 34Faries MB, Mozzillo N, Kashani-Sabet M, et al. Long-term survival after complete surgical resection and adjuvant immunotherapy for distant melanoma metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24(13): 3991-4000.
- 35Bello DM, Panageas KS, Hollmann T, et al. Survival outcomes after metastasectomy in melanoma patients categorized by response to checkpoint blockade. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020; 27(4): 1180-1188.
- 36Klemen ND, Wang M, Feingold PL, et al. Patterns of failure after immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors predict durable progression-free survival after local therapy for metastatic melanoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2019; 7(1): 196.
- 37Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP. Adoptive cell transfer as personalized immunotherapy for human cancer. Science. 2015; 348(6230): 62-68.
- 38Leach DR, Krummel MF, Allison JP. Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade. Science. 1996; 271(5256): 1734-1736.
- 39Nishimura H, Minato N, Nakano T, Honjo T. Immunological studies on PD-1 deficient mice: implication of PD-1 as a negative regulator for B cell responses. Int Immunol. 1998; 10(10): 1563-1572.
- 40Hodi 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.
- 41Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(26): 2517-2526.
- 42Prieto PA, Yang JC, Sherry RM, et al. CTLA-4 blockade with ipilimumab: long-term follow-up of 177 patients with metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(7): 2039-2047.
- 43Robert C, Ribas A, Schachter J, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20(9): 1239-1251.
- 44Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381(16): 1535-1546.
- 45Tawbi HA, Schadendorf D, Lipson EJ, et al. Relatlimab and nivolumab versus nivolumab in untreated advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2022; 386(1): 24-34.
- 46Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(26): 2507-2516.
- 47Su F, Viros A, Milagre C, et al. RAS mutations in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(3): 207-215.
- 48Robert C, Grob JJ, Stroyakovskiy D, et al. Five-year outcomes with dabrafenib plus trametinib in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381(7): 626-636.
- 49Ascierto PA, McArthur GA, Dréno B, et al. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(9): 1248-1260.
- 50Ascierto PA, Dummer R, Gogas HJ, et al. Update on tolerability and overall survival in COLUMBUS: landmark analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib vs vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2020; 126: 33-44.
- 51Lee AY, Droppelmann N, Panageas KS, et al. Patterns and timing of initial relapse in pathologic stage II melanoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24(4): 939-946.
- 52Luke JJ, Rutkowski P, Queirolo P, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022; 399(10336): 1718-1729.
- 53Eggermont AM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob JJ, et al. Prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(19): 1845-1855.
- 54Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandalà M, et al. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma (EORTC 1325-MG/KEYNOTE-054): distant metastasis-free survival results from a double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021; 22(5): 643-654.
- 55Dummer R, Hauschild A, Santinami M, et al. Five-year analysis of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383(12): 1139-1148.
- 56Amaria RN, Prieto PA, Tetzlaff MT, et al. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable melanoma: a single-centre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19(2): 181-193.
- 57Amaria RN, Reddy SM, Tawbi HA, et al. Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in high-risk resectable melanoma. Nat Med. 2018; 24(11): 1649-1654.
- 58Blank CU, Rozeman EA, Fanchi LF, et al. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma. Nat Med. 2018; 24(11): 1655-1661.
- 59Schermers B, Franke V, Rozeman EA, et al. Surgical removal of the index node marked using magnetic seed localization to assess response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with stage III melanoma. Br J Surg. 2019; 106(5): 519-522.
- 60Reijers ILM, Menzies AM, van Akkooi ACJ, et al. Personalized response-directed surgery and adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab in high-risk stage III melanoma: the PRADO trial. Nat Med. 2022; 28(6): 1178-1188.