Clinical Presentation, Systemic Therapy and Prognosis of Mucosal Melanoma, A Study of 463 Consecutive Cases
Li Zhou,Chuanliang Cui,Bin Lian,Lu Si,Zhihong Chi,Xi Nan Sheng,Li,Xuan Wang,Bixia Tang,Xieqiao Yan,Jun Guo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e20036
IF: 45.3
2015-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e20036 Background: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is the second common subtype in Asians with a percentage of 22-25%; but there have been few epidemiologic studies. So we performed a retrospective analysis of MM about its clinical presentation, gene mutation, systemic therapy (tx) and prognosis. Methods: Using institutional databases, we identified patients (pts) with MM who were treated in Chinese melanoma centers between 2006-2014 with basic demographics and clinical outcomes. Results: 463 MM pts were included. Median age at diagnosis 56 years (range, 17-86); 61% female; primary site: 149 anal-rectal, 125 genitourinary, 174 head/neck, 15 others. Mutation (mut) status: 14.1% (45/319) KIT mut; 9.7% (31/319) BRAF mut; 10.3% (33/319) NRAS mut. Stage I-II/ III/IV at referring – 36%/17%/47%, M1a/b/c – 17%/18%/65%. The median overall survival (mOS) was 28.0 mo (95% CI 25.1-30.9 mo). Multivariate analysis showed that clinical stage and LDH level were significant prognostic factors for OS. The application of adjuvant therapy and LDH level were significant prognostic factors for disease free survival. For 293 pts who developed stage IV, mOS was 14.0 mo, for M1a, M1b, M1c, 20.2, 16.0, 11.1 mo respectively (p = .004). In 1st-line setting, the objective response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and median progress free time (PFS) was 11.8%, 54.8%, and 3.1 mo (95% CI 2.6-3.8 mo), most of the pts using dacarbazine/temozolomide, cisplatin plus rhEndostatin had RR, DCR and PFS, 12.3%, 64.6%, and 4.5 mo respectively. In 2nd-line setting, paclitaxel plus carboplatin was common regimen, RR, DCR and PFS was 8.3% 61.1% and 3.3 mo (95% CI 2.0-4.4 mo). The mPFS of 3rd-line tx (including Abraxane, investigational targeted drugs, etc) was 1.3 mo without complete regression and partial regression. 8/20 pts harboring c-kit mutation used imatinib, 3/8 pts had SD for a median PFS of 6.7 mo. 5/15 pts harboring BRAF mutation used vemurafenib, 3/5 pts got response, mPFS cannot be evaluated. Conclusions: The prognosis for MM is still poor, clinical stage has its significance for OS. For pts with stage IV, the efficacy of systemic tx includes chemotherapy and targeted therapy is modest. Further investigation into the biology and treatment of MM is needed.