4.5 Review

Neoadjuvant therapy for melanoma: rationale for neoadjuvant therapy and pivotal clinical trials

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/17588359221083052

关键词

BRAF; MEK inhibition; immune checkpoint blockade; malignant melanoma; neoadjuvant therapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The treatment of malignant melanoma has undergone significant changes in recent years, including the use of immune checkpoint blockade, targeted therapy, and intralesional therapy. Despite improvements in patient response rates, there remains a subset of high-risk patients with surgically resectable disease. Neoadjuvant therapy offers several advantages for this high-risk group, including a stronger immune response, the ability to assess treatment response, and increased disease resectability.
The treatment of malignant melanoma has drastically changed over the past decade with the advent of immune checkpoint blockade, targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibition, and other novel therapies such as oncolytic virus intralesional therapy. Despite improvements in patient response rates and survival with these new treatments, there exists a large portion of patients with surgically resectable disease that are high risk for relapse. Patients with high-risk resectable melanoma account for up to 20% of newly diagnosed cases. For this high-risk group of patients, neoadjuvant therapy has many purposed advantages over adjuvant therapy, including a more robust immune response due to abundant tumor antigens at treatment initiation, the ability to assess pathologic response to therapy, tumor downstaging leading to increased disease resectability, and a potential decreased need for extensive lymphadenectomies. These findings have been backed by preclinical models and multiple neoadjuvant trials are underway. In this review, we will discuss the trials that have set the foundation for the current treatment standards and discuss the role and rationale for neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk malignant melanomas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据