Cutaneous melanoma is the most dangerous skin cancer, with high death rates in advanced stages. To assess the impact of each treatment on patient outcomes, most studies use relapse-free survival (RFS) as a primary endpoint and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a secondary endpoint. The aim of this narrative review of the main adjuvant studies for resected stage III/IV melanoma, with a specific focus on DMFS, is to evaluate DMFS trends and their potential association with RFS, identify which treatments are possibly associated with better outcomes in terms of DMFS and their potential predictive factors, and discuss DMFS trends in terms of patient management in daily practice. We outline the impact of each available treatment option on DMFS and RFS according to the years of follow-up and compare data from different studies. Overall, the trends of DMFS closely follow those of RFS, with most patients relapsing at visceral rather than regional sites. As it captures the burden of patients who develop distant relapse, DMFS could be considered a primary endpoint, in addition to RFS, in adjuvant trials, identifying patients whose relapse is associated with a worse prognosis and who may need further systemic treatment.
Clinical significance of distant metastasis-free survival (Dmfs) in melanoma: A narrative review from adjuvant clinical trials
Amabile S.;Roccuzzo G.;Pala V.;Tonella L.;Rubatto M.;Merli M.;Fava P.;Ribero S.;Fierro M. T.;Quaglino P.Last
2021-01-01
Abstract
Cutaneous melanoma is the most dangerous skin cancer, with high death rates in advanced stages. To assess the impact of each treatment on patient outcomes, most studies use relapse-free survival (RFS) as a primary endpoint and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as a secondary endpoint. The aim of this narrative review of the main adjuvant studies for resected stage III/IV melanoma, with a specific focus on DMFS, is to evaluate DMFS trends and their potential association with RFS, identify which treatments are possibly associated with better outcomes in terms of DMFS and their potential predictive factors, and discuss DMFS trends in terms of patient management in daily practice. We outline the impact of each available treatment option on DMFS and RFS according to the years of follow-up and compare data from different studies. Overall, the trends of DMFS closely follow those of RFS, with most patients relapsing at visceral rather than regional sites. As it captures the burden of patients who develop distant relapse, DMFS could be considered a primary endpoint, in addition to RFS, in adjuvant trials, identifying patients whose relapse is associated with a worse prognosis and who may need further systemic treatment.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
