ReviewAdjuvant interferon-α for the treatment of high-risk melanoma: An individual patient data meta-analysis
Introduction
Effective adjuvant therapy for melanoma remains an unmet need. Despite the approval of 2 new agents (ipilimumab, PEGylated interferon [PEG-IFN]), the last 5 years have not seen improvements in overall survival (OS) in any adjuvant therapy study. Interferon remains a standard of care in many countries without a consensus view on its clinical utility. Results from randomised trials of adjuvant interferon-α (IFN-α) in high-risk melanoma have been considered inconsistent, with some suggesting benefit with IFN-α and others showing no difference [1]. In 1996, high-dose IFN-α was approved in both the US and Europe based on the results of the ECOG 1684 trial in stage IIB/III patients, which showed a benefit for high-dose IFN-α on both relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS [2]. Updated results with a median follow-up of 12.6 years, showed that the RFS benefit was maintained (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72, P = 0.02), but the HR for OS had decreased from 0.67 to 0.82 (P = 0.18), possibly due to competing causes of death [3]. The ECOG E1690 trial which compared high- and low-dose IFN-α versus observation also in stage IIB/III patients, had a very similar outcome for RFS for high and low dose, but did not confirm the benefit for high or low dose on OS [4].
In Europe, low-dose IFN-α was also approved based on a French trial in stage II patients, which showed a RFS benefit (HR = 0.75, P = 0.035), and a trend towards improved OS (HR = 0.72, P = 0.059) [5]. In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved PEG-IFN for stage III melanoma based on the EORTC 18991 trial, which showed an event-free survival (EFS) benefit (HR = 0.82, P = 0.01), but again no OS benefit [6].
Previous meta-analyses of the interferon trials have shown that IFN-α has a consistent effect on RFS, but no clear effect on OS [7], [8], [9]. No relationship with dose or duration of treatment with outcome has been demonstrated [7], [8]. IFN-α can have substantial side-effects, especially at high doses. Obtaining a reliable estimate of the true benefit of IFN-α, and determining whether the magnitude of the benefit differs in different treatment regimens or disease characteristics is important. To this end, we have performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised trials of IFN-α versus no IFN-α in patients with high-risk melanoma.
Section snippets
Trial identification
Randomised trials comparing IFN-α with no IFN-α in the adjuvant setting for the treatment of high-risk melanoma were identified by searches of registers and electronic databases including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. This was supplemented by searching abstract books of conference proceedings from the main meetings (e.g. American Society of Clinical Oncology, World Melanoma Congress, ESMO/ECCO), scanning reference lists of retrieved
Results
Fifteen randomised trials of IFN-α versus no IFN-α (control) were identified (Table 1, Supplemental Material Fig. 1 and Supplemental Material Table 1) [2], [4], [5], [6], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. There were three 3-arm studies comparing different doses or schedules of IFN-α with control, meaning there was 18 comparisons included in the analysis; ECOG 1690 trial [4] contributes to both the high- and low-dose IFN-α versus control subgroups, and the EORTC 18952
Discussion
This IPD meta-analysis brings together all the currently available data from randomised trials of adjuvant IFN-α versus no IFN-α for the treatment of high-risk malignant melanoma, providing the most reliable assessment to date on the role of IFN-α.
We have showed that IFN-α produces a clear benefit in terms of reducing the risk of recurrence, with a smaller benefit on OS. There was a highly significant 14% proportional reduction in the risk of an event (recurrence or death without recurrence)
Sources of support
No funders were directly involved in the project. This work was supported by the University of Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit who received core support from the UK Department of Health, through the National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development, up to March 2012, which funded Natalie Ives. A core grant from the Fonds Cancer, FOCA (BE), provides support for the EORTC Headquarters staff (co-author, Stefan Suciu).
Funding
No funders were directly involved in the project. This work was supported by the University of Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit who received core support from the UK Department of Health, through the National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development, up to March 2012, which funded Natalie Ives. A core grant from the Fonds Cancer, FOCA (BE), provides support for the EORTC Headquarters staff (co-author, Stefan Suciu).
The following groups (listed alphabetically, with the names of
Author contributions
NI developed and designed the project, wrote the protocol and data requirement documents, undertook all the statistical analyses, interpreted the analyses and wrote the manuscript.
SS designed the project and was involved in the protocol development. SS also provided individual patient data from the EORTC trials, interpreted the analyses and reviewed and commented on the manuscript.
AE designed the project and was involved in the protocol development. AE also provided individual patient data from
Conflict of interest statement
AE has received personal fees from BMS and MSD for sitting on Scientific Advisory Boards. JK has received personal fees from Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Green Peptide and Roche and grants from Prometheus. PL has received personal fees from Amgen, BMS, Chugai, GSK, Merck, Novartis and Roche for sitting on Scientific Advisory Boards and to support travel to meetings. CG has received grants and personal fees from BMS, Novartis and Roche, and personal fees from Amgen, LEO and MSD for sitting on
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the patients who participated in the trials of adjuvant interferon for melanoma included in this meta-analysis. They also thank Professor Robert K. Hills for his help in creating the database that performed all the analyses.
References (29)
- et al.
Randomised trial of interferon alpha-2a as adjuvant therapy in resected primary melanoma thicker than 1.5 mm without clinically detectable node metastases. French Cooperative Group on Melanoma
Lancet
(1998) - et al.
Adjuvant therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b versus observation alone in resected stage III melanoma: final results of EORTC 18991, a randomised phase III trial
Lancet
(2008) - et al.
Does adjuvant interferon-α for high-risk melanoma provide a worthwhile benefit? A meta-analysis of the randomised trials
Cancer Treat Rev
(2003) - et al.
Post-surgery adjuvant therapy with intermediate doses of interferon alfa 2b versus observation in patients with stage IIb/III melanoma (EORTC 18952): randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2005) - et al.
Two different durations of adjuvant therapy with intermediate-dose interferon alfa-2b in patients with high-risk melanoma (Nordic IFN trial): a randomised phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
(2011) - et al.
Effect of long-term adjuvant therapy with interferon alpha-2a in patients with regional node metastases from cutaneous melanoma: a randomised trial
Lancet
(2001) - et al.
Adjuvant low-dose interferon alpha-2a with or without dacarbazine compared with surgery alone: a prospective-randomized phase III DeCOG trial in melanoma patients with regional lymph node metastasis
Ann Oncol
(2008) - et al.
Final results of the EORTC 18871/DKG 80-1 randomised phase III trial: rIFN-alpha2b versus rIFN-gamma versus ISCADOR M versus observation after surgery in melanoma patients with either high-risk primary (thickness >3 mm) or regional lymph node metastasis
Eur J Cancer
(2004) - et al.
Ulceration and stage are predictive of interferon efficacy in melanoma: results of the phase III adjuvant trials EORTC 18952 and EORTC 18991
Eur J Cancer
(2012) - et al.
Cutaneous melanoma
Lancet
(2014)
Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial
Lancet Oncol
Interferon alfa therapy for malignant melanoma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
J Clin Oncol
Interferon alfa-2b adjuvant therapy of high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial EST 1684
J Clin Oncol
A pooled analysis of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and Intergroup trials of adjuvant high-dose interferon for melanoma
Clin Cancer Res
Cited by (142)
Cutaneous melanoma
2023, The LancetHas the advent of modern adjuvant systemic therapy for melanoma rendered sentinel node biopsy unnecessary?
2023, European Journal of CancerHeterogeneity in major depressive disorder: The need for biomarker-based personalized treatments
2023, Advances in Clinical ChemistryA Narrative Review of Current Knowledge on Cutaneous Melanoma
2024, Clinics and Practice
- †
Deceased.