Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jun 27;8(44):76029-76043.
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.18635. eCollection 2017 Sep 29.

Chemosensitivity-directed therapy compared to dacarbazine in chemo-naive advanced metastatic melanoma: a multicenter randomized phase-3 DeCOG trial

Affiliations

Chemosensitivity-directed therapy compared to dacarbazine in chemo-naive advanced metastatic melanoma: a multicenter randomized phase-3 DeCOG trial

Selma Ugurel et al. Oncotarget. .

Abstract

Chemotherapy still plays an important role in metastatic melanoma, particularly for patients who are not suitable or have no access to highly efficacious new therapies. Pre-therapeutic chemosensitivity testing might be useful to identify optimal chemotherapy regimens for individual patients. This multicenter randomized phase-3 trial was aimed to test for superiority of chemosensitivity-directed combination chemotherapy compared to standard dacarbazine monochemotherapy, and to demonstrate the chemosensitivity test result as prognostic in metastatic melanoma. Chemo-naive patients with advanced melanoma were biopsied from metastatic lesions. Tumor cells were isolated and tested ex-vivo for sensitivity to chemotherapeutic agents using an ATP-based viability assay. Patients with evaluable test results were randomly assigned to receive either chemosensitivity-directed combination chemotherapy (paclitaxel+cisplatin, treosulfan+gemcitabine, treosulfan+cytarabine), or dacarbazine. The primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS). After inclusion of 287 patients and a median follow-up of 26 months, the per-protocol population (n=244) showed no difference in OS between chemosensitivity-directed therapy and dacarbazine (median 9.2 vs 9.0 months, HR=1.08, p=0.64). The disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) tended to be higher in patients treated with chemosensitivity-directed therapy (32.8% vs 23.0%, p=0.088); objective response rates (CR+PR) showed no difference between groups (10.7% vs 12.3%, p=0.90). Patients whose tumors were tested chemosensitive showed no better OS or response rate than patients with chemoresistant tumors. Severe toxicities (CTC grade 3-4) were significantly more frequently observed with chemosensitivity-directed combination chemotherapy than with dacarbazine (40.2% vs 12.3%, p<0.0001). These results indicate, that chemosensitivity-directed combination chemotherapy is not superior to dacarbazine, but leads to significantly more severe toxicities.

Keywords: chemosensitivity; individualized chemotherapy; melanoma; phase-3 trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST This is an investigator-initiated trial without financial support from pharmaceutical companies. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest concerning the pharmaceutical agents used in this trial. Additional conflicts of interest: Selma Ugurel declares research support from medac and BMS, speaker's and advisory board honoraria from BMS, MSD, and Roche, and travel support from BMS, medac, MSD, and Roche. Carmen Loquai declares advisory board honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, BMS, MSD, Leo and Amgen, travel reimbursement from Roche, Novartis, BMS, and Amgen, and speakers honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, and Amgen. Patrick Terheyden declares speakers honoraria from BMS, Novartis, and Roche, consultant´s honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis, and Roche, and travel support from BMS and Roche. Dirk Schadendorf declares research support from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, and Merck, honoraria for lectures from Roche, Novartis, MSD, BMS, and Amgen, and honoraria for advisory boards from Roche, Novartis, BMS, Merck, and Amgen. Jochen Utikal declares speakers and advisory board honoraria and travel support from Amgen, BMS, GSK, Leo, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Ralf Gutzmer declares research support from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Johnson&Johnson, honoraria for lectures from Roche, BMS, GSK, Novartis, Merck Serono, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Galderma, Janssen, and Boehringer Ingelheim, honoraria for advisory boards from Roche, BMS, GSK, Novartis, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, LEO, Amgen, Pfizer, and Pierre-Fabre, and travel support from Roche and BMS. Katharina Kähler declares consultant fees from Roche, BMS, and MSD, travel grants and speaker fees from Roche, BMS, MSD, Novartis, and Amgen. Rudolf Stadler declares advisory honoraria from Takeda, Roche, and Actelion. Christoph Höller declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Roche. Jürgen C. Becker discloses grant support and/or advisory board honoraria from Amgen, BMS, CureVac, Lytex, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigontec, Takeda and Roche.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic presentation of the study flow
Figure 2
Figure 2. Waterfall plot depicting the best tumor response for each patient
Data regarding the best tumor response are shown for 84 patients in the sensitivity-directed combination chemotherapy arm (A) and for 94 patients in the dacarbazine monochemotherapy arm (B), who had undergone at least one tumor assessment after study treatment. Each bar represents data for an individual patient. Colors indicate the treatment regimen received by the patients. The percent change from baseline in the sum of the longest diameters of the target lesions defined at study entry is shown on the y axis. Negative values indicate tumor shrinkage; positive values indicate tumor growth. The pointed lines indicate changes in diameters corresponding to partial response (-30%) and progressive disease (+20%), respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan Meier curves showing the probability of progression-free and overall survival of the per-protocol population (n=244) by treatment arm (A) and by ex-vivo determined tumor chemosensitivity. (B) Differences between groups were calculated using the log rank test. Censored observations are indicated by vertical bars.

References

    1. Korn EL, Liu PY, Lee SJ, Chapman JA, Niedzwiecki D, Suman VJ, Moon J, Sondak VK, Atkins MB, Eisenhauer EA, Parulekar W, Markovic SN, Saxman S, 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;26:527–534. - PubMed
    1. Eigentler TK, Caroli UM, Radny P, Garbe C. Palliative therapy of disseminated malignant melanoma: a systematic review of 41 randomised clinical trials. Lancet Oncol. 2003;4:748–759. - PubMed
    1. Hodi FS, O'Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, Gonzalez R, Robert C, Schadendorf D, Hassel JC, Akerley W, van den Eertwegh AJ, Lutzky J, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010:363. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Flaherty KT, Puzanov I, Kim KB, Ribas A, McArthur GA, Sosman JA, O'Dwyer PJ, Lee RJ, Grippo JF, Nolop K, Chapman PB. Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010:363. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ugurel S, Röhmel J, Ascierto PA, Flaherty KT, Grob JJ, Hauschild A, Larkin J, Long GV, Lorigan P, McArthur GA, Ribas A, Robert C, Schadendorf D, et al. Survival of patients with advanced metastatic melanoma: The impact of novel therapies. Eur J Cancer. 2016;53:125–34. - PubMed