Five-Year Outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with dabrafenib plus trametinib led to long-term benefit in approximately one third of the patients who had unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

Improved pyrexia-related outcomes associated with an adapted pyrexia adverse event management algorithm in patients treated with adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib: Primary results of COMBI-APlus.

BACKGROUND: COMBI-AD demonstrated long-term benefit of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with resected stage III BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma; however, 9% of patients permanently discontinued therapy due to pyrexia. COMBI-APlus evaluated whether an adapted pyrexia management algorithm reduces high-grade pyrexia and pyrexia-related adverse outcomes. METHODS: COMBI-APlus is an open-label, phase IIIb trial evaluating an adapted pyrexia management algorithm in patients with high-risk resected stage III BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma treated with up to 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib. Both drugs were interrupted for pyrexia (temperature ≥38°C) or the occurrence of pyrexia syndrome for suspected recurrent pyrexia. Treatment was restarted at the same dose once patients were symptom free for ≥24 h. The primary endpoint was the composite rate of grade 3/4 pyrexia, hospitalisation due to pyrexia, or permanent discontinuation due to pyrexia versus historical COMBI-AD control (20.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16.3%-24.1%). RESULTS: At data cutoff (5 October 2020), COMBI-APlus met its primary endpoint of significant improvement in the composite rate of pyrexia (8.0% [95% CI, 5.9%-10.6%]), with rates of 3.8% for grade 3/4 pyrexia, 4.3% for hospitalisation due to pyrexia, and 2.4% for discontinuation due to pyrexia. Estimated 12-month relapse-free survival was 91.8% (95% CI, 89.0%-93.9%). The most common adverse events were consistent with those in COMBI-AD, and 14.7% of patients permanently discontinued treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted pyrexia management algorithm appears to reduce the incidence of severe pyrexia outcomes, enables patients to manage pyrexia at home, and helps patients remain on treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03551626.

Survival of patients with advanced metastatic melanoma: The impact of MAP kinase pathway inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition - Update 2019.

BACKGROUND: Recent therapeutic strategies, particularly MAP kinase pathway inhibitors (BRAF, MEK) and immune checkpoint blockers (CTLA-4, PD-1), have been put on the test for their differential impact on long-term survival of metastatic melanoma patients. Various agents, dose regimens and combinations have been tested against each other vigorously within these two therapy groups. However, results from prospective head-to-head comparative trials comparing both strategies against each other are still lacking. METHODS: We performed an exploratory analysis of survival data from selected clinical trials representative for these two treatment strategies in advanced metastatic melanoma. 84 Kaplan-Meier survival curves from 26 trials were digitised and grouped by therapy strategy and treatment line. For each of these groups, mean survival curves were generated for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by weighted averaging. RESULTS: Survival curves grouped together by therapy strategy revealed a high concordance, with a larger extent in the first-line setting compared to higher treatment lines. In first-line therapy, the averaged 3-year OS proportions were 41.3% for BRAF plus MEK inhibition, 49.9% for PD-1 inhibition, and 58.4% for CTLA-4 plus PD-1 inhibition. Comparison of the mean PFS and OS curves of kinase inhibition and checkpoint blockade revealed a superiority of combined BRAF plus MEK inhibition within the first 12 months, later changing to a superiority of PD-1 blockers alone or in combination with CTLA-4 blockade. In second-line or higher, BRAF plus MEK inhibition was superior to anti-PD-1 monotherapy throughout the first three years; averaged 3-year OS proportions were 42.4% for BRAF plus MEK inhibition, and 40.1% for PD-1 inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: and relevance: These results need confirmation by head-to-head comparative randomised clinical trials.

Dacarbazine with or without oblimersen (a Bcl-2 antisense oligonucleotide) in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced melanoma and low-normal serum lactate dehydrogenase: 'The AGENDA trial'.

In a previous large randomized, open-label study, retrospective subset analysis revealed that the addition of the Bcl-2 antisense oligonucleotide oblimersen to dacarbazine (Dac) significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and the response rate in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced melanoma and normal baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. To confirm and expand on this observation, we conducted a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether oblimersen augmented the efficacy of Dac in advanced melanoma patients with low-normal baseline LDH levels. A total of 314 chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive Dac (1000 mg/m(2)) preceded by a 5-day continuous intravenous infusion of either oblimersen sodium (7 mg/kg/day) or placebo every 21 days for less than eight cycles. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Response and progression of the disease were assessed by independent blinded review of computed tomography scan images. No difference in overall nor progression-free survival was observed between the Dac-oblimersen and Dac-placebo groups. Although the overall (17.2 vs. 12.1%) and durable (10.8 vs. 7.6%) response rates numerically favored Dac-oblimersen over Dac-placebo, they did not differ significantly (P=0.19 and 0.32, respectively). The incidence of hematologic adverse events, particularly thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, was higher in the Dac-oblimersen group than in the Dac-placebo group. Withdrawals from the study because of treatment-related adverse events were low (i.e. <2.5%) in both groups. The addition of oblimersen to Dac did not significantly improve overall survival nor progression-free survival in patients with advanced melanoma and low-normal levels of LDH at baseline.

Skin protection by sunscreens is improved by explicit labeling and providing free sunscreen.

Whatever the improvement in the protection spectrum of sunscreens (SCs), actual skin protection mainly depends on the way they are used, especially on the quantity applied. This prospective randomized study assessed how much sun protection factor (SPF) labeling, which is hardly understandable by a layman, and high cost account for misuse of SCs. In three beach resorts in France, 364 individuals were blindly randomized during their holidays to three arms (1) free SCs intervention (FS) = four types of SCs with their usual SPF label (60B-A, 20B-A, 12B-A, 6B-3A) at free disposal; (2) same free SCs with an explicit labeling (FNL), including sunburn protection, likely protection against long-term effects of UV, and possibility to get a tan; and (3) no intervention (NI). As compared to FS, FNL increased the quantity of SCs applied, mainly in the minority of people who were not "tan-seekers", reduced sunburns particularly in sun-sensitive individuals (25.6 vs 58.3%, P=0.005), and induced a shift in the level of SCs chosen. Free delivery SCs were associated with a more systematic application of SCs in case of exposure, and a decreased sunburn occurrence, without increase of exposure. These results suggest that a labeling more explicit for the public would result in a better protection in SC users and that cost could be a limiting factor to use SC as often as necessary.