David Berd, MD

There have been an astoundingnumber of published reviewson human cancer vaccines, andI take responsibility for my share. Apparentlythe interest of the medicalcommunity in cancer vaccines remainsintense, despite the modest progressthat has been made in our field and thepaucity of convincing, positive clinicalresults. Somehow the idea of treatinga cancer by inducing an antitumorimmune response or strengthening theexisting one is strongly appealing bothto physicians and to patients. Whetherthis enthusiasm is justified by the scienceis a question that should troublethe sleep of all of us who call ourselvestumor immunologists.

In organizing this brief, but informative review of human melanoma vaccines, Haigh et al have provided an important service to the readers of oncology and are to be commended for their efforts. Their descriptions of the variety of vaccine technologies currently under development and their assessment of the strengths and weakness of each are, for the most part, fair and conservative.

Anderson and colleagues present a comprehensive and factually accurate overview of systemic treatment for advanced melanoma. They correctly identify dacarbazine as the only single agent officially sanctioned for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. They further opine that "dacarbazine alone remains the standard of care for initial chemotherapy treatment of metastatic melanoma." With overall response rates of 10% to 20%, a complete response rate of less than 4%, and no evidence that treatment with dacarbazine improves survival over best palliative care, one questions whether or not dacarbazine would merit approval if reevaluated today.