Dacarbazine (DTIC) versus vaccination with autologous peptide-pulsed dendritic cells (DC) in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma: a randomized phase III trial of the DC study group of the DeCOG.

BACKGROUND: This randomized phase III trial was designed to demonstrate the superiority of autologous peptide-loaded dendritic cell (DC) vaccination over standard dacarbazine (DTIC) chemotherapy in stage IV melanoma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: DTIC 850 mg/m2 intravenously was applied in 4-week intervals. DC vaccines loaded with MHC class I and II-restricted peptides were applied subcutaneously at 2-week intervals for the first five vaccinations and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary study end point was objective response (OR); secondary end points were toxicity, overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: At the time of the first interim analysis 55 patients had been enrolled into the DTIC and 53 into the DC-arm (ITT). OR was low (DTIC: 5.5%, DC: 3.8%), but not significantly different in the two arms. The Data Safety & Monitoring Board recommended closure of the study. Unscheduled subset analyses revealed that patients with normal serum LDH and/or stage M1a/b survived longer in both arms than those with elevated serum LDH and/or stage M1c. Only in the DC-arm did those patients with (i) an initial unimpaired general health status (Karnofsky = 100) or (ii) an HLA-A2+/HLA-B44- haplotype survive significantly longer than patients with a Karnofsky index <100 (P = 0.007 versus P = 0.057 in the DTIC-arm) or other HLA haplotypes (P = 0.04 versus P = 0.57 in DTIC-treated patients). CONCLUSIONS: DC vaccination could not be demonstrated to be more effective than DTIC chemotherapy in stage IV melanoma patients. The observed association of overall performance status and HLA haplotype with overall survival for patients treated by DC vaccination should be tested in future trials employing DC vaccines.

Clinical phase II study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as second-line treatment in disseminated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Stage IV melanoma has a poor prognosis with a median survival of 3-11 months from diagnosis of distant metastases. Response rates in first-line regimens range around 15-20%. Non-responders have a median survival around 6 months. Currently, no second-line treatment in advanced melanoma has been established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a clinical phase II study we evaluated the efficacy of liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) in 30 patients (17 m, 13 f) with progressing metastatic melanoma who had failed a previous chemotherapy. Liposomal doxorubicin was given in an outpatient setting at a dose of 50 mg/m2 i.v. on d1, d22, d43 and d64, subsequently at 40 mg/m2 at d85 before first staging and in 4-week intervals thereafter. Treatment was very well tolerated with 100 cycles given in total. Response rate, survival time, time-to-progression and toxicity were assessed. RESULTS: Erythrodysesthesia was the most severe toxicity in 6% at CTC grade 3. Liposomal doxorubicin was of limited clinical efficacy with 21 patients progressing within the first 12 weeks. However, 7 patients were treated 3-9 months and were stable for >90 days, achieving 5 SD, 1 PR and 1 CR. Median survival after initiation of second-line treatment was 214 days (95% CI: 151-304 days) with 7 patients surviving >300 and 5 patients >400 days. CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal doxorubin as monotherapy is well tolerated but of limited clinical efficacy. Whether the survival benefit of a significant proportion of patients (20%) holds true in larger cohorts and whether the efficacy of liposomal doxorubicin can be improved by combinations without compromising the low toxicity profile needs further studies.