Outcomes After Curative Metastasectomy for Patients with Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the role of curative metastasectomy (CM) for malignant melanoma (MM) patients is limited, especially in the current era of effective systemic therapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to ascertain the role of CM compared with incomplete or nonsurgical treatment for patients with MM.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for studies investigating CM for MM until 30 September 2021. The review included studies that compared CM with no-CM and reported a hazard ratio (HR) after multivariate analysis for overall survival. A random-effects model with inverse variance was used to calculate pooled HR. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

For the final analysis, 40 studies including 31,282 patients (CM, 9958; no-CM, 21,324) were considered. Compared with no-CM, CM was associated with a significantly lower risk of death (HR, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.47; p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis showed that the outcome was independent of the effective systemic therapy and anatomic location of metastasis. An unfavorable prognosis was associated with advancing age, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), male gender, prior stage 3 disease, multiple metastases and organ sites, and shorter disease-free interval.

CONCLUSION

Curative metastasectomy for MM is associated with a lower risk of death than non-curative treatment methods. Selection bias and underlying weakness of studies reduced the strength of evidence in this review. However, CM should be a part of the multimodality treatment of MM whenever technically feasible.