Interferon alpha for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma: review of international literature and practical recommendations from an expert panel on the use of interferon.

The degree to which interferon (IFN) alpha-2b offers real clinical benefits in the adjuvant therapy of melanoma at high risk of recurrence is a subject of debate. This, together with questions over optimal treatment scheme and concerns over toxicity, has limited its clinical use. On the basis of a review of the literature, an Italian Expert Panel has made practical recommendations for a consistent approach in the use of IFN. Although it is clear that more research into predictive factors to identify patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant IFN therapy is required, IFN remains the only currently available adjuvant option for melanoma. Based on meta-analyses of clinical trials, there is clear evidence that treatment with IFN is beneficial with regard to overall and recurrence-free survival (RFS). As such, IFN should be offered to patients who are at high risk of recurrence. Specific recommendations with regard to disease stage are provided.

Impact of use of oral anticancer drugs on activity of Italian oncology practices: results of a survey conducted by the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM).

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: In recent years, the number of oral anticancer drugs used in clinical practice has rapidly increased. The Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM) conducted a survey to describe the impact of the use of oral anticancer drugs on the daily activity of Italian oncology practices. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: A survey questionnaire was distributed to the coordinators of the regional sections of AIOM. A 6-month period was considered, from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010. The survey addressed (1) quantitative aspects of the use of oral anticancer drugs; (2) practical aspects in the management of patients treated with these drugs; (3) issues related to treatment costs and reimbursement procedures. RESULTS: Thirty-six questionnaires were received from institutions distributed throughout the Italian territory. Oral anticancer drugs (both chemotherapy and molecularly targeted agents) accounted for a significant proportion (17%) of prescribed treatments. Among the responding institutions, there were different dispensation procedures of oral drugs to patients: drugs were dispensed by the pharmacist (57%) or directly by the medical oncologist (23%) or nurse (20%). The medical oncologist played a major role in the communication with patients (73% alone and a further 24% in cooperation with other professional figures) and was the point of reference in the event of side effects in 97% of cases. In most cases, the reimbursement of drug costs was separated ("File F" procedure) from the flat fare received by the hospital for outpatient visits or day-hospital access. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal organization of oral anticancer treatment warrants the cooperation and integration of multiple professional figures. At least three figures are involved in patient management in the hospital: the medical oncologist, the nurse, and the hospital pharmacist. Oral anticancer treatments are associated with specific reimbursement issues: in the majority of cases, the cost of the drug is reimbursed separately from the cost of patient access.

Disparity in the "time to patient access" to new anti-cancer drugs in Italian regions. Results of a survey conducted by the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM).

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: In 2009, the Italian Society of Medical Oncology (AIOM) conducted a survey to describe the impact of regional pharmaceutical formularies on the disparity of access to eight new drugs among cancer patients treated in Italian regions. The survey documented some regional restrictions for some anti-cancer drugs. In the study, we analyzed the "time to patient access" to new anti-cancer drugs in Italian regions. METHODS: In March 2010, we analyzed the availability of 17 new anti-cancer drugs at a regional level, specifically the coherence of regional authorizations compared with national authorizations approved by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). In the regions with pharmaceutical formularies, we analyzed the characteristics of technical-scientific committees for the evaluation of inclusion of hospital drugs in these formularies. We also analyzed the time from EMA (CMPH) authorization to AIFA marketing authorization, the time from AIFA marketing authorization to patient availability, and the total time from EMA (CMPH) authorization to patient availability of the drugs in all Italian regions, for 11 of these drugs. RESULTS: Some drugs were included in all the regional pharmaceutical formularies, without restrictions, whereas other drugs were not included in one and others were not included in more than one formulary. Median time from EMA to AIFA was 11.2 months (range, 2.9-17.1). Median time from AIFA to patient availability was 1.4 months (range, 0.0-50.5) in regions with drug formularies versus 0.0 months in regions without drugs formularies. Median total time from EMA to patient availability was longer in regions with formularies (13.3 months; range, 2.9-65.3) than in regions without formularies (11.2 months; range, 2.9-24.0), where drugs are immediately available after AIFA marketing authorization. Moreover, the interval was very long (range, 2.9-65.3) for some drugs in regions with formularies. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis confirmed that the presence of multiple hierarchical levels of drug evaluation can create disparity in drug availability for Italian citizens.

Differences in the availability of new anti-cancer drugs for Italian patients treated in different regions. Results of analysis conducted by the Italian Society Of Medical Oncology (AIOM).

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Italy is divided into 20 regions. As a consequence of local autonomy, following marketing authorization by the Italian Medicines Agency, each drug for hospital use is not immediately available, because its approval needs to undergo further steps that can be different among regions. The Italian Society of Medical Oncology conducted the present study to describe the impact of the existence of sub-national pharmaceutical formularies on the disparity of access to new anti-cancer drugs among patients treated in different Italian regions. METHODS: The availability of 8 new anti-cancer drugs at a regional level and the coherence of regional authorizations compared with national authorizations approved by the Italian Medicines Agency were analyzed as of April 2009. RESULTS: Fourteen regions and autonomous province of Trento have a regional pharmaceutical formulary. In most cases, the regional pharmaceutical formularies include the eight analyzed drugs, with therapeutic indications coherent with national marketing authorization indications. Five drugs (bevacizumab, trastuzumab, rituximab, erlotinib, sunitinib) were included in all the existing regional pharmaceutical formularies, without restrictions, whereas three drugs (cetuximab, sorafenib, pemetrexed) were found to have restrictions in some regions. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of multiple hierarchical levels of drug evaluation creates a potential element of disparity in the access to pharmacological therapies for Italian citizens.

Role of key-regulator genes in melanoma susceptibility and pathogenesis among patients from South Italy.

BACKGROUND: Several genetic alterations have been demonstrated to contribute to the development and progression of melanoma. In this study, we further investigated the impact of key-regulator genes in susceptibility and pathogenesis of such a disease. METHODS: A large series (N = 846) of sporadic and familial cases originating from South Italy was screened for germline mutations in p16(CDKN2A), BRCA2, and MC1R genes by DHPLC analysis and automated DNA sequencing. Paired primary melanomas and lymph node metastases from same patients (N = 35) as well as melanoma cell lines (N = 18) were analyzed for somatic mutations in NRAS, BRAF, and p16(CDKN2A) genes. RESULTS: For melanoma susceptibility, investigations at germline level indicated that p16(CDKN2A) was exclusively mutated in 16/545 (2.9%) non-Sardinian patients, whereas BRCA2 germline mutations were observed in 4/91 (4.4%) patients from North Sardinia only. Two MC1R germline variants, Arg151Cys and Asp294His, were significantly associated with melanoma in Sardinia. Regarding genetic events involved in melanoma pathogenesis at somatic level, mutually-exclusive mutations of NRAS and BRAF genes were observed at quite same rate (about two thirds) in cultured and in vivo melanomas (either primary or metastatic lesions). Conversely, p16(CDKN2A) gene alterations were observed at increased rates moving from primary to metastatic melanomas and melanoma cell lines. Activation of the ERK gene product was demonstrated to be consistently induced by a combination of molecular alterations (NRAS/BRAF mutations and p16(CDKN2A) silencing). CONCLUSION: Our findings further clarified that: a) mutation prevalence in melanoma susceptibility genes may vary within each specific geographical area; b) multiple molecular events are accumulating during melanomagenesis.

Feasibility of high-dose interferon-alpha2b adjuvant therapy for high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma.

The Kirkwood high-dose interferon-alpha2b adjuvant therapy in high-risk-of-recurrence melanoma patients (stage IIb-III) demonstrated a benefit in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) (three trials out of three) and overall survival (OS) (two trials out of three). These important and exclusive results match with a grade 3-4 toxicity in about 75% of patients. This problem is the most limiting of this treatment. The aim of the study was to check these results and the feasibility of this treatment using the original Kirkwood schedule of 52 weeks, with appropriate dose modification, until unacceptable toxicity or progression of disease. From 23rd February 1998 until 29th July 2002, 26 patients were treated (mean age 45 years; range 25-70) with high-dose interferon-alpha2b adjuvant therapy. All patients were evaluated for toxicity, whilst 24 out of 26 (92%) were evaluated for OS and DFS. All patients were in stage IIB/III of the new American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification. The sentinel node biopsy was performed in 19 out of 26 (73.1%) patients (clinical N0). At 31st December 2002, 20 out of 26 (77%) were still alive, whilst four (15%) had died and two (8%) were lost to follow-up. Of the patients still alive, 14 (70%) were disease free. The patients lost to follow-up refused to continue therapy for toxicity related treatment: one of them was disease free, whereas one was relapsed. There were 11 observed relapses (44%). The DFS ranged from 2 to 27 months. Among the patients, the maximal DFS is, at the time of writing, 59 months. The DFS mean is 29 months, the median is 19 months. The OS calculation will be performed at the end of 5 years observation. Now our attention is on therapy tolerability. In 18 patients out of 26 (69%) we noted at least one grade 3-4 toxicity, in accordance with literature data. The most common toxicities were haematological, hepatic, fever and asthenia. Overall, only two grade 4 events (one hepatic and one haematological) were reported. Grade 3 toxicity was hepatic in 23% of patients and haematological in 50%. Grade 2 toxicity was hepatic in 19%, haematological in 27% and fever in 50%. Grade 1 toxicities were hepatic, haematological and fever in 15, 15 and 35% of patients, respectively. Asthenia was severe in 54%, mild in 31% and not found in 15%. In 39, 4 and 15%, respectively, we have reported no hepatic, haematological or fever events. Less common toxicities were nausea, diarrhoea, headache, arthralgia, alopecia and one case of hypothyroidism. As a result of these reported toxicities, of 23 patients evaluable with regard to the protocol, 12 underwent dose reductions, six suspended treatment for disease progression, eight delayed treatment for toxicity, two interrupted treatment indefinitely for unacceptable toxicity or refused treatment, two refused to continue, two patients had no delay in treatment and three did not receive any delay or dose reduction. Of three patients still in therapy, just one has so far received a delay in treatment. Overall, only four patients (17%) interrupted therapy for toxicity related events, whereas 83% continued with the expected program: 52 weeks of therapy with appropriate dose modifications.