mechanism | treatment | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
---|
B-Raf enzyme inhibitors | vemurafenib | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
BRIM 8, 2018 | vemurafenib vs placebo | PFS 0.65 [0.50; 0.85] | | OS 0.72 [0.49; 1.08] | BRIM 8 (cohort IIIC) | vemurafenib vs placebo | | | PFS 0.80 [0.54; 1.18] RFS 0.80 [0.54; 1.18] DMFS 0.91 [0.57; 1.45] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
BRIM 8, 2018 | e twice-daily adjuvant oral vemurafenib 960 mg tablets for52 weeks (13×28-day cycles) (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=-9) | patients with resected,BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma: IC–IIIA–IIIB (cohort 1) or stage IIIC (cohort 2) | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | BRIM 8 (cohort IIIC) | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
combined BRAF-MEK inhibitors | encorafenib plus binimetinib | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
COLUMBUS, 2018 | encorafenib plus binimetinib vs vemurafenib | PFS 0.54 [0.41; 0.71] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
COLUMBUS, 2018 | oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (n=192) vs. oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (n=191) 3 arms: oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group) | patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation | open label Sample size: 192/191 Primary endpoint: Progression free survival FU duration: 16.6 mo (median) |
|
combined BRAF-MEK inhibitors | selumetinib | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Kirkwood, 2012 | selumetinib vs temozolomide | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Kirkwood, 2012 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
combined BRAF-MEK inhibitors | trametinib + dabrafenib | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Flaherty, 2012 | trametinib and dabrafenib vs dabrafenib | PFS 0.39 [0.25; 0.61] median 9.4 mo vs. 5.8 mo | | | COMBI-D (Long), 2014 | trametinib and dabrafenib vs dabrafenib | OS 0.63 [0.42; 0.94] PFS 0.75 [0.57; 0.99] | | | COMBI-V (Robert), 2015 | trametinib and dabrafenib vs vemurafenib | OS 0.69 [0.53; 0.89] PFS 0.56 [0.46; 0.69] median 11.4 mo vs. 7.3 mo | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Flaherty, 2012 | dabrafenib (150 mg) plus trametinib (1 or 2 mg) (n=162) vs. dabrafenib monotherapy (n=-9) | patients with metastatic melanoma and BRAF V600 mutations | Sample size: 162/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: phase 2 | COMBI-D (Long), 2014 | dabrafenib and trametinib (n=423) vs. dabrafenib monotherapy (n=0) | previously untreated patients who had unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation | Sample size: 423/0 Primary endpoint: Progression-Free Survival FU duration: | COMBI-V (Robert), 2015 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
combined BRAF-MEK inhibitors | trametinib + dabrafenib | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
COMBI-AD, 2017 | trametinib and dabrafenib vs placebo | OS 0.57 [0.42; 0.78] PFS 0.47 [0.39; 0.57] distant metastasis free survival 0.51 [0.40; 0.65] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
COMBI-AD, 2017 | dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) orally for 12 months (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=-9) | Patients with completely resected, histologically confirmed, BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, high-risk [Stage IIIa (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIb or IIIc] cutaneous melanoma | double-blind Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: Relapse-free survival FU duration: |
|
combined BRAF-MEK inhibitors | vemurafenib and cobimetinib | versus 1L unresectable No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Larkin, 2014 | vemurafenib and cobimetinib vs vemurafenib | PFS 0.51 [0.39; 0.67] median 9.9 mo vs. 6.2 mo | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Larkin, 2014 | vemurafenib and cobimetinib (n=-9) vs. vemurafenib and placebo (n=-9) | patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | ipilimumab | versus chemotherapy ipilimumab + dacarbazine superior to dacarbazine in terms of OS in Robert, 2011 (1L patients) | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Robert, 2011 | ipilimumab + dacarbazine vs dacarbazine | OS 0.72 [0.59; 0.87] median 11.2 mo vs. 9.1 mo Demonstrated | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Robert, 2011 | ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter of body-surface area) (n=-9) vs. dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter) (n=-9) | patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma (stage III (unresectable) orstage IV) | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: OS FU duration: |
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | ipilimumab | versus gp100 No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Hodi (ipi alone), 2010 | ipilimumab 3 mg/kg vs gp100 | OS 0.64 [0.49; 0.84] median 10.1 mo vs. 6.4 mo | | vitiligo all grade -9.00 [NaN; NaN] vitiligo (grade 3-4) -9.00 [NaN; NaN] | Hodi (ipi + gp100), 2010 | ipi + gp100 vs gp100 | OS 0.69 [0.56; 0.85] median 10.0 mo vs. 6.4 mo | | vitiligo all grade -9.00 [NaN; NaN] vitiligo (grade 3-4) -9.00 [NaN; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Hodi (ipi alone), 2010 | ipilimumab 3mg/kg every 3 weeks up to 4 treatments (n=137) vs. gp100 alone (n=136) 3 arms: ipilimumab plus gp100, ipilimumab alone, or gp100 alone | patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, whose disease had progressed while they were receiving therapy for metastatic disease | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 137/136 Primary endpoint: overall surviva FU duration: | Hodi (ipi + gp100), 2010 | Ipilimumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight, was administered with gp100 every 3 weeks for up to four treatments (n=403) vs. gp100 alone
(n=136) 3 arms: ipilimumab plus gp100, ipilimumab alone, or gp100 alone | patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, whose disease had progressed while they were receiving therapy for metastatic disease
| open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 403/136 Primary endpoint: overall surviva FU duration:
|
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | ipilimumab | versus placebo or control ipilimumab superior to placebo in terms of recurrence free survival in EORTC 18071 (Eggermont), 2015 (adjuvant patients) ipilimumab inferior to placebo in terms of grade 3-4 in EORTC 18071 (Eggermont), 2015 (adjuvant patients) | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
EORTC 18071 (Eggermont), 2015 | ipilimumab vs placebo | recurrence free survival 0.76 [0.64; 0.90] Demonstrated OS 0.72 [0.58; 0.89] PFS 0.76 [0.64; 0.90] distant metastasis free survival 0.76 [0.63; 0.91] | grade 3-4 2.07 [1.74; 2.46] | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
EORTC 18071 (Eggermont), 2015 | ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years or until disease recurrence or an unacceptable level of toxic effects occurred (n=475) vs. placebo (n=476) | high risk patients who had undergone complete resection of stage III melanoma | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 475/476 Primary endpoint: RFS FU duration: 5.3 years phase 3 |
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | nivolumab | versus anti-CTLA-4 nivolumab superior to ipilimumab in terms of recurrence free survival in CheckMate 238, 2017 (adjuvant patients) | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 238, 2017 | nivolumab vs ipilimumab | recurrence free survival 0.65 [0.51; 0.83] Demonstrated PFS 0.65 [0.51; 0.83] Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug 0.23 [0.17; 0.31] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.31 [0.24; 0.40] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 238, 2017 | nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (n=453) vs. ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (n=453) | patients with Complete Resection of Stage IIIb/c or Stage IV Melanoma | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 453/453 Primary endpoint: Recurrence free survival FU duration: 18 months (median) |
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | nivolumab | versus anti-PD-1 No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs nivo), 2015 | nivolumab + ipilimumab vs nivolumab | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs nivo), 2015 | Nivolumab + ipilumab
(n=314) vs. nivolumab alone
(n=316) 3 arms: nivolumab alone, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab, ipilumab alone
| Previously Untreated Advanced Melanoma
| double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 314/316 Primary endpoint: PFS, OS FU duration: this comparison (nivo+ipi versus nivo) was not planned and could not be considered as interential |
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | nivolumab | versus chemotherapy nivolumab superior to dacarbazine in terms of OS in CheckMate 066 (Robert), 2015 (1L patients) nivolumab inferior to dacarbazine in terms of Vitiligo any grade in CheckMate 066 (Robert), 2015 (1L patients) | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 066 (Robert), 2015 | nivolumab vs dacarbazine | OS 0.42 [0.25; 0.71] median not reached vs. 10.8 mo Demonstrated PFS 0.43 [0.34; 0.55] median 5.1 mo vs. 2.2 mo | Vitiligo any grade 21.89 [2.98; 160.92] | Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug 0.58 [0.31; 1.09] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.66 [0.41; 1.07] Vitiligo grade 3-4 NaN [NaN; NaN] | CheckMate 037 (Weber), 2015 | nivolumab vs chemotherapy | overall response rate 3.72 [1.41; 9.85] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.29 [0.18; 0.46] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 066 (Robert), 2015 | nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (n=210) vs. dacarbazine at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks (n=208) | previously untreated patients who had unresectable metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation (stage III or IV) | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 210/208 Primary endpoint: OS FU duration: | CheckMate 037 (Weber), 2015 | ntravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2
weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic eff ects (n=272) vs. investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m² every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m² combined with carboplatin area under the
curve 6 every 3 weeks) (n=133) | patients with advanced
melanoma who progressed after ipilimumab, or
ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAFV mutation-positive (second-line or later-line treatment) | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 272/133 Primary endpoint: ORR, OS FU duration: phase 3 |
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | nivolumab | versus ipilimumab nivolumab + ipilimumab superior to ipilimumab in terms of PFS in CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 (1L patients) nivolumab superior to ipilimumab in terms of PFS in CheckMate 067 (nivo vs ipi), 2015 (1L patients) nivolumab + ipilimumab inferior to ipilimumab in terms of Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug in CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 (1L patients) nivolumab + ipilimumab inferior to ipilimumab in terms of Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events in CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 (1L patients) | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 | nivolumab + ipilimumab vs ipilimumab | PFS 0.42 [0.31; 0.57] median 11.5 mo vs. 2.9 mo Demonstrated | Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug 2.46 [1.82; 3.34] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 2.01 [1.63; 2.47] | | Postow, 2015 | nivolumab + ipilimumab vs ipilimumab | | | | CheckMate 067 (nivo vs ipi), 2015 | nivolumab vs ipilimumab | PFS 0.57 [0.43; 0.76] median 6.9 mo vs. 2.9 mo Demonstrated Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug 0.52 [0.32; 0.83] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.60 [0.44; 0.81] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CheckMate 067 (nivo + ipi vs ipi), 2015 | 1mg of nivolumab per kilogram every 3 weeks plus 3 mg
of ipilimumab per kilogram every 3 weeks for
4 doses, followed by 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram every 2 weeks for cycle 3 and beyond (n=314) vs. 3 mg of ipilimumab per kilogram every 3 weeks
for 4 doses (n=315) 3 arms: nivolumab alone, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab, ipilumab alone | Previously Untreated Advanced Melanoma | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 314/315 Primary endpoint: PFS, OS FU duration: | Postow, 2015 | nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram)and ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined once every 3 weeks for four doses followed
by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until the occurrence
of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients with metastatic melanoma who
had not previously received treatment, | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response FU duration: phase 2. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors | CheckMate 067 (nivo vs ipi), 2015 | 3 mg
of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight every
2 weeks
(n=316) vs. 3 mg of ipilimumab per kilogram every 3 weeks
for 4 doses (n=315) 3 arms: nivolumab alone, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab, ipilumab alone
| Previously Untreated Advanced Melanoma
| double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 316/315 Primary endpoint: PFS, OS FU duration:
|
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | pembrolizumab | versus anti-PD-1 No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
KEYNOTE-001, 2014 | pembrolizumab 2mg/kg vs pembrolizumab 10mg/kg | | | OS 1.09 [0.68; 1.75] PFS 0.84 [0.57; 1.23] Adverse events leading to discontinuation of drug 0.63 [0.23; 1.69] overall response rate 0.99 [0.58; 1.67] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 1.75 [0.73; 4.18] serious drug-related adverse events 6.61 [0.83; 52.57] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
KEYNOTE-001, 2014 | intravenous pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (n=89) vs. intravenous pembrolizumab at 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks (n=84) | patients (aged ¡Ý18 years) with advanced melanoma whose disease had progressed after at least two ipilimumab doses | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 89/84 Primary endpoint: ORR FU duration: |
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | pembrolizumab | versus chemotherapy No demonstrated result for efficacy pembrolizumab 2mg/kg inferior to chemotherapy in terms of Vitiligo any grade in KEYNOTE 002 (2mg/kg Q3W), 2015 (2L patients) | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
KEYNOTE 002 (2mg/kg Q3W), 2015 | pembrolizumab 2mg/kg vs chemotherapy | PFS 0.57 [0.45; 0.73] median 2.9 mo vs. 2.7 mo | Vitiligo any grade 4.80 [1.07; 21.61] | Vitiligo grade 3-4 NaN [NaN; NaN] | KEYNOTE 002 (10mg/kg Q3W), 2015 | pembrolizumab 10mg/kg vs chemotherapy | PFS 0.50 [0.39; 0.64] median 2.9 mo vs. 2.7 mo | | Vitiligo any grade 4.30 [0.94; 19.61] Vitiligo grade 3-4 NaN [NaN; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
KEYNOTE 002 (2mg/kg Q3W), 2015 | Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg IV Q3W (n=180) vs. investigator-choice
chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide) (n=179) 3 arms ntravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice
chemotherapy | patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and disease progression following ipilimumab and, if BRAFV600 mutation positive, a BRAF inhibitor | open design Parallel groups Sample size: 180/179 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: phase 2 | KEYNOTE 002 (10mg/kg Q3W), 2015 | intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks (n=181) vs. investigator-choice
chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide)
(n=179) 3 arms ntravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice
chemotherapy
| patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and disease progression following ipilimumab and, if BRAFV600 mutation positive, a BRAF inhibitor
| open design Parallel groups Sample size: 181/179 Primary endpoint: PFS FU duration: phase 2
|
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | pembrolizumab | versus ipilimumab No demonstrated result for efficacy pembrolizumab (every 2W) inferior to ipilimumab in terms of Vitiligo any grade in KEYNOTE-006 (every 2W), 2015 (1L patients) pembrolizumab (every 3W) inferior to ipilimumab in terms of Vitiligo any grade in KEYNOTE-006 (every 3W), 2015 (1L patients) | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
KEYNOTE-006 (every 2W), 2015 | pembrolizumab (every 2W) vs ipilimumab | OS 0.68 [0.53; 0.87] median NA vs. 16 months PFS 0.58 [0.46; 0.73] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.67 [0.45; 0.98] | Vitiligo any grade 5.76 [2.03; 16.31] | Vitiligo grade 3-4 NaN [NaN; NaN] | KEYNOTE-006 (every 3W), 2015 | pembrolizumab (every 3W) vs ipilimumab | OS 0.68 [0.53; 0.87] median NA vs. 16 months PFS 0.58 [0.47; 0.72] Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 0.51 [0.33; 0.78] | Vitiligo any grade 7.16 [2.56; 20.01] | Vitiligo grade 3-4 NaN [NaN; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
KEYNOTE-006 (every 2W), 2015 | pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks (n=-9) vs. four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks (n=-9) 3 arms: pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks | patients with advanced melanoma who had received no more than one previous systemic therapy for advanced disease 12% of second line patients was included | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: PFS, OS FU duration: | KEYNOTE-006 (every 3W), 2015 | Pembrolizumab Every 3 Weeks
(n=277) vs. Ipilimumab (Participants receive ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg IV, once every 3 weeks for a total oPembrolizumab Every 2 Weeks (Participants receive pembrolizumab, 10 mg intravenously (IV), once every 2 weeks for up to 2 years)
2/ Pembrolizumab Every 3 Weeks (P (n=278) 3 arms: pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per
kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab
(at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks.
| patients with unresectable stage III or IV advanced melanoma and who had received no more than one previous
systemic therapy for advanced disease
12% of second line patients was included | open label Parallel groups Sample size: 277/278 Primary endpoint: PFS, OS FU duration: |
|
immune checkpoint inhibition | pembrolizumab | versus placebo or control pembrolizumab superior to placebo in terms of recurrence free survival in KEYNOTE-054, 2018 (adjuvant patients) pembrolizumab inferior to placebo in terms of Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events in KEYNOTE-054, 2018 (adjuvant patients) pembrolizumab inferior to placebo in terms of Vitiligo any grade in KEYNOTE-054, 2018 (adjuvant patients) | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
KEYNOTE-054, 2018 | pembrolizumab vs placebo | recurrence free survival 0.57 [0.43; 0.75] Demonstrated PFS LP-D1 positif 0.54 [0.42; 0.69] PFS PD-L1 negatif 0.47 [0.26; 0.85] PFS 0.57 [0.43; 0.75] | Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events 4.35 [2.61; 7.26] Vitiligo any grade 2.96 [1.34; 6.52] | Vitiligo grade 3-4 NaN [NaN; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
KEYNOTE-054, 2018 | Pembrolizumab (Participants receive pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously (IV) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle for up to 1 year)
(n=514) vs. placebo (n=505) | patients with complete Resection of High-Risk Stage III Melanoma | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 514/505 Primary endpoint: Recurrence-free survival , FU duration: 15 months (median) |
|
interferon BIS A EFFACER | Interferon alpha | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy rIFN alpha-2b inferior to observation in terms of OS in EORTC18871/DKG 80-1 stage III | 5 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
EORTC18871/DKG 80-1 (Kleeberg), 2004 | rIFN alpha-2b vs observation | | | OS 0.96 [0.76; 1.21] PFS 1.04 [0.84; 1.29] | EORTC18952 (Eggermont), 2005 | ID IFN alpha-2b (I M) vs observation | | | OS 0.84 [0.66; 1.07] PFS 0.84 [0.67; 1.06] DMFS 0.84 [0.66; 1.07] | EORTC18991 (Eggermont), 2008 | PEG IFN alpha-2b (I M) vs observation | PFS 0.87 [0.76; 1.00] | | OS 0.96 [0.83; 1.12] DMFS 0.93 [0.81; 1.07] | Nordic IFN Trial, 2011 | ID IFN alpha-2b (I M) vs observation | PFS 0.77 [0.62; 0.95] | | OS 0.91 [0.72; 1.15] | EORTC18871/DKG 80-1 stage III | rIFN alpha-2b vs observation | | OS 1.61 [1.01; 2.56] | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
EORTC18871/DKG 80-1 (Kleeberg), 2004 | rIFN-alpha2b (n=-9) vs. observation (n=-9) 4 arms: IFN-alpha2b versus rIFN-gamma versus ISCADOR M versus observation | High-risk stage II patients (thickness >3 mm) and stage III patients (positivelymph nodes) without distant metastasis | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 8.2 years (median) | EORTC18952 (Eggermont), 2005 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | patients who had had a thick primary tumour (thickness4 mm) resected (stage IIb) or regional lymph node metastases dissected (stage III) | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4.65 years | EORTC18991 (Eggermont), 2008 | pegylated interferon alfa-2b 6 mug/kg per week for 8 weeks (induction) then 3 mug/kg per week (maintenance) for an intended duration of 5 years (n=627) vs. (n=629) | patients with resected stage III melanoma | Sample size: 627/629 Primary endpoint: recurrence-free survival FU duration: 3.8 years | Nordic IFN Trial, 2011 | intermediate-dose interferon alfa-2b duration 1 (n=-9) vs. duration 2 (n=-9) | patients with stage IIB-IIC or III resected cutaneous melanoma. | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 72·4 months | EORTC18871/DKG 80-1 stage III | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
MEK inhibitor | selumetinib | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Kirkwood | selumetinib vs temozolomide | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Kirkwood | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|