Final analysis of phase II results with cemiplimab in metastatic basal cell carcinoma after hedgehog pathway inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) is a rare condition with no effective second-line treatment options. Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor that blocks the binding of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) to its ligands, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed death-ligand 2 (PD-L2). Here, we present the final analysis of cemiplimab in patients with mBCC after first-line hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) treatment (NCT03132636). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm, phase II study, adults with mBCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, post-HHI treatment, received cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR). Duration of response (DOR) was a key secondary endpoint. Other secondary endpoints were ORR per investigator assessment, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), complete response rate, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 70% were male and the median age of patients was 64 [interquartile range (IQR) 57.0-73.0] years. The median duration of follow-up was 8 months (IQR 4-21 months). The ORR per ICR was 22% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 36%], with 2 complete responses and 10 partial responses. Among responders, the median time to response per ICR was 3 months (IQR 2-7 months). The estimated median DOR per ICR was not reached [95% CI 10 months-not evaluable (NE)]. The disease control rate was 63% (95% CI 49% to 76%) per ICR and 70% (95% CI 56% to 82%) per investigator assessment. The median PFS per ICR was 10 months (95% CI 4-16 months); the median OS was 50 months (95% CI 28 months-NE). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue [23 (43%)] and diarrhoea [20 (37%)]. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Cemiplimab demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity, including durable responses, and an acceptable safety profile in patients with mBCC who had disease progression on or intolerance to HHI therapy.

Single-agent anti-PD-1 or combined with ipilimumab in patients with mucosal melanoma: an international, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is a rare melanoma subtype with distinct biology and poor prognosis. Data on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are limited. We determined the efficacy of ICIs in MM, analyzed by primary site and ethnicity/race. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from 25 cancer centers in Australia, Europe, USA and Asia was carried out. Patients with histologically confirmed MM were treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) ± ipilimumab. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) by primary site (naso-oral, urogenital, anorectal, other), ethnicity/race (Caucasian, Asian, Other) and treatment. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In total, 545 patients were included: 331 (63%) Caucasian, 176 (33%) Asian and 20 (4%) Other. Primary sites included 113 (21%) anorectal, 178 (32%) urogenital, 206 (38%) naso-oral and 45 (8%) other. Three hundred and forty-eight (64%) patients received anti-PD-1 and 197 (36%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab. RR, PFS and OS did not differ by primary site, ethnicity/race or treatment. RR for naso-oral was numerically higher for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab [40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 54%] compared with anti-PD-1 (29%, 95% CI 21% to 37%). Thirty-five percent of patients who initially responded progressed. The median duration of response (mDoR) was 26 months (95% CI 18 months-not reached). Factors associated with short PFS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥3 (P < 0.01), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) more than the upper limit of normal (ULN) (P = 0.01), lung metastases (P < 0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (P < 0.01). Factors associated with short OS were ECOG PS ≥1 (P < 0.01), LDH >ULN (P = 0.03), lung metastases (P < 0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MM has poor prognosis. Treatment efficacy of anti-PD-1 ± ipilimumab was similar and did not differ by ethnicity/race. Naso-oral primaries had numerically higher response to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab, without difference in survival. The addition of ipilimumab did not show greater benefit over anti-PD-1 for other primary sites. In responders, mDoR was short and acquired resistance was common. Other factors, including site and number of metastases, were associated with survival.

Complete response of advanced cutaneous squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas with sequential cemiplimab and sonidegib therapy.

A 78-year-old woman was referred to our skin cancer centre with three previous incomplete resections in the left cavum conchae of a deep-infiltrating locally advanced, but still asymptomatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC). The patient noted furthermore two rapidly growing exophytic lesions in the left preauricular and cervical area in the last weeks. The clinical and histological distinction of locally advanced from metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) lesions was challenging. Imaging analysis with CT scans showed, however, an involvement of the parotid gland as well as multiple small lymph node metastases. The interdisciplinary tumour board decision at our institution recommended a systemic treatment with the PD1-antibody cemiplimab. After 13 cycles with cemiplimab at a dose of 350 mg intravenously every 3-weeks, the patient showed a complete response of the two CSCC lesions with histological confirmation. However, the BCC of the left ear appeared to be unchanged and still asymptomatic. The interdisciplinary tumour board considered this tumour to be no candidate for a curative resection or irradiation. Therefore, the patient was exposed to the hedgehog inhibitor sonidegib with a conventional dose of 200 mg orally per day. After 3 months of treatment, the tumour showed a markable regression and a complete response was confirmed by 3-punch biopsies from this preoperated lesion. Both cemiplimab and sonidegib were excellently tolerated with almost no adverse events apart from a mild fatigue (CTC grade 1) over the first 3 weeks of the cemiplimab therapy. There were no laboratory abnormalities found.

A multicentre study of naevus-associated melanoma vs. de novo melanoma, tumour thickness and body site differences.

BACKGROUND: Whether melanoma in histological contiguity with a naevus [naevus-associated melanoma (NAM)] is distinctly different from melanoma arising de novo remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the characteristics of de novo melanoma differ from NAM and are not due to naevus obliteration in thicker tumours. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of de novo melanoma and NAM in seven referral centres in Europe, Australia and the USA between 2006 and 2015. RESULTS: In a total of 9474 localized melanomas, de novo melanoma was associated with thicker tumours and body site differences compared with NAM. In the subset of T1 melanomas (n = 5307), similar body site differences were found in multivariate analysis by body site. When compared with NAM, de novo melanoma was more likely to affect older individuals (≥ 70 years) when located on the head/neck [odds ratio (OR) 4·65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·55-8·46], the trunk (OR 1·82, 95% CI 1·40-2·36) or the upper extremity (OR 1·69, 95% CI 1·14-2·50), was more likely to affect female patients when located on the lower extremities (OR 1·36, 95% CI 1·03-1·80), and was more likely to be of the nodular melanoma subtype (OR 2·23, 95% CI 1·14-4·35) when located on the trunk. De novo melanoma was less likely to have regression present compared with NAM. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathological and body site differences between de novo melanoma and NAM support the divergent pathway model of development. These differences were also found in thin melanomas, suggesting that de novo melanomas are different from NAM and their differences are not due to the obliteration of naevus remnants in thicker tumours.

Effectiveness, safety and utilization of vismodegib in locally advanced basal cell carcinoma under real-world conditions in Germany - The non-interventional study NIELS.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) can arise by the uncontrolled proliferation of cells from multiple epidermal compartments due to aberrant activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) signalling pathway. Vismodegib, a small-molecule inhibitor of this pathway, is approved for treatment of patients with locally advanced (la) BCC inappropriate for surgery or radiotherapy or patients with symptomatic metastatic (m) BCC. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this non-interventional study was to assess effectiveness with a special focus on duration of response (DOR), safety and utilization of vismodegib for treatment of laBCC in daily practice in Germany. METHODS: This non-interventional study (NIS) observed treatment of laBCC with vismodegib according to the German label in clinical practice. All available patients who had received at least one dose of vismodegib between commercial availability of vismodegib in Germany (02 August 2013) and 3 years before end of study (31 March 2016) could be included and were documented retrospectively and/or prospectively for up to 3 years. Primary effectiveness variable was DOR. Assessment of tumour response was carried out by the treating physicians. Exploratory variables included utilization of vismodegib, decision makers for therapy and method of tumour response evaluation. All statistical analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Between September 2015 and March 2019, 66 patients were observed at 26 German centres. The objective response rate (ORR) was 74.2% and the disease control rate (DCR) was 90.9%. The median DOR was 15.9 months (95% CI: 9.2; 25.7; n = 49 patients with response). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.1 months and the median time to response (TTR) 2.7 months. A total of 340 adverse events were reported in 63 (95.5%) patients; no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The NIS NIELS shows effectiveness and safety of vismodegib in patients with laBCC. It confirms the transferability of the results of the pivotal trial into routine clinical practice.

Which medical disciplines diagnose and treat melanoma in Europe in 2019? A survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The incidence of melanoma is increasing. This places significant burden on societies to provide efficient cancer care. The European Cancer Organisation recently published the essential requirements for quality melanoma care. The present study is aimed for the first time to roughly estimate the extent to which these requirements have been met in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey of experts from melanoma centres in 27 European countries was conducted from 1 February to 1 August 2019. Data on diagnostic techniques, surgical and medical treatment, organization of cancer care and education were collected and correlated with national health and economic indicators and mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) as a surrogate for survival. Univariate linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the correlations. SPSS software was used. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The MIR was lower in countries with a high health expenditure per capita and with a higher numbers of general practitioners (GPs) and surgeons (SURG) per million inhabitants. In these countries, GPs and dermatologists (DER) were involved in melanoma detection; high percentage of DER used dermatoscopy and were involved in the follow-up of all melanoma stages; both medical oncologists (ONC) and dermato-oncologists administered systemic treatments; and patients had better access to sentinel lymph node biopsy and were treated within multidisciplinary tumour boards. CONCLUSION: Based on these first estimates, the greater involvement of GPs in melanoma detection; the greater involvement of highly trained DER in dermatoscopy, dermatosurgery, follow-up and the systemic treatment of melanoma; and the provision of ongoing dermato-oncology training for pathologists, SURG, DER and ONC are necessary to provide an optimal melanoma care pathway. A comprehensive analysis of the melanoma care pathway based on clinical melanoma registries will be needed to more accurately evaluate these first insights.

Sonidegib and vismodegib in the treatment of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma: a joint expert opinion.

Sonidegib and vismodegib are hedgehog pathway inhibitors (HhIs) approved for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Until recently, vismodegib was the only targeted treatment available for patients with locally advanced BCC (laBCC) in cases where surgery and radiotherapy are inappropriate. Sonidegib has recently been approved and now presents an alternative treatment option. The clinical differences between the two HhIs in patients with laBCC are unclear, as no head-to-head randomized controlled trials are or will be initiated. Moreover, there were important differences in the designs of their pivotal studies, BOLT (sonidegib) and ERIVANCE (vismodegib), and these differences complicate evidence-based analysis of their relative efficacy and safety profiles. In this paper, a group of clinical experts in the management of laBCC summarizes the clinical and pharmacological profiles of sonidegib and vismodegib based on published data and their own clinical experience. One key difference between the two pivotal studies was the criteria used to assess BCC severity. ERIVANCE (a single-arm phase II trial) used the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), while the more recent double-blind randomized BOLT trial used the stringent modified RECIST. A preplanned analysis adjusted the outcomes from BOLT with RECIST-like criteria, and this enabled the experts to discuss relative efficacy outcomes for the two treatments. Centrally reviewed objective response rate (ORR) for vismodegib was 47.6% (95% CI: 35.5-60.6) at 21-month follow-up using RECIST. After adjusting with RECIST-like criteria, the ORR for sonidegib according to central review at 18-month follow-up was 60.6% (95% CI: 47.8-72.4). Both treatments were associated with similar patterns of adverse events. Sonidegib and vismodegib share the same efficacy and tolerability profiles, but their pharmacokinetic profiles show several differences, such as volume of distribution and half-life. Further studies are needed to understand how these differences may impact clinical practice.

The evolving field of Dermato-oncology and the role of dermatologists: Position Paper of the EADO, EADV and Task Forces, EDF, IDS, EBDV-UEMS and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of skin cancers has been increasing steadily over the last decades. Although there have been significant breakthroughs in the management of skin cancers with the introduction of novel diagnostic tools and innovative therapies, skin cancer mortality, morbidity and costs heavily burden the society. OBJECTIVE: Members of the European Association of Dermato-Oncology, European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, International Dermoscopy Society, European Dermatology Forum, European Board of Dermatovenereology of the European Union of Medical Specialists and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force have joined this effort to emphasize the fundamental role that the specialist in Dermatology-Venereology has in the diagnosis and management of different types of skin cancer. We review the role of dermatologists in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancers and cutaneous lymphomas, and discuss approaches to optimize their involvement in effectively addressing the current needs and priorities of dermato-oncology. DISCUSSION: Dermatologists play a crucial role in virtually all aspects of skin cancer management including the implementation of primary and secondary prevention, the formation of standardized pathways of care for patients, the establishment of specialized skin cancer treatment centres, the coordination of an efficient multidisciplinary team and the setting up of specific follow-up plans for patients. CONCLUSION: Skin cancers represent an important health issue for modern societies. The role of dermatologists is central to improving patient care and outcomes. In view of the emerging diagnostic methods and treatments for early and advanced skin cancer, and considering the increasingly diverse skills, knowledge and expertise needed for managing this heterogeneous group of diseases, dermato-oncology should be considered as a specific subspecialty of Dermatology-Venereology.

A randomized, multinational, noninferiority, phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BF-200 aminolaevulinic acid gel vs. methyl aminolaevulinate cream in the treatment of nonaggressive basal cell carcinoma with photodynamic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) represents the most common nonmelanoma skin cancer worldwide, affecting mainly adult, fair-skinned individuals. The World Health Organization distinguishes aggressive and nonaggressive forms, of which prototypical variants of the latter are primary nodular and superficial BCC. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate noninferiority of BF-200 ALA (a nanoemulsion gel containing 5-aminolaevulinic acid) compared with MAL (a cream containing methyl aminolaevulinate) in the treatment of nonaggressive BCC with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Noninferiority of the primary efficacy variable (overall patient complete response 12 weeks after last PDT) would be declared if the mean response for BF-200 ALA was no worse than that for MAL, within a statistical margin of Δ = -15%. METHODS: The study was a randomized, phase III trial performed in Germany and the U.K. with ongoing 5-year follow-up. Of 281 randomized patients, 138 were treated with BF-200 ALA and 143 with MAL. Patients received two PDT sessions 1 week apart. Remaining lesions 12 weeks after the second PDT were retreated. Illumination was performed with a red light source (635 nm, 37 J cm-2 ). The results shown include clinical end points and patients' reassessment 12 months after the last PDT. The study was registered with EudraCT (number 2013-003241-42). RESULTS: Of the BF-200 ALA-treated patients, 93·4% were complete responders compared with 91·8% in the MAL group. The difference of means was 1·6, with a one-sided 97·5% confidence interval of -6·5, establishing noninferiority (P < 0·0001). The results for secondary efficacy parameters were in line with the primary outcome. Recurrence rates 12 months after the last treatment were ≤ 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of nonaggressive BCC with BF-200 ALA-PDT is highly effective and well tolerated with proven noninferiority to MAL-PDT. It demonstrates low recurrence rates after 1 year of follow-up.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: final overall survival results of the randomized BRIM-3 study.

BACKGROUND: The BRIM-3 trial showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. We present final OS data from BRIM-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). OS and PFS were co-primary end points. OS was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with and without censoring of data for dacarbazine patients who crossed over to vemurafenib. RESULTS: Between 4 January 2010 and 16 December 2010, a total of 675 patients were randomized to vemurafenib (n = 337) or dacarbazine (n = 338, of whom 84 crossed over to vemurafenib). At the time of database lock (14 August 2015), median OS, censored at crossover, was significantly longer for vemurafenib than for dacarbazine {13.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.0-15.4] versus 9.7 months [95% CI 7.9-12.8; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]; P = 0.03}, as was median OS without censoring at crossover [13.6 months (95% CI 12.0-15.4) versus 10.3 months (95% CI 9.1-12.8); HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.96); P = 0.01]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS rates for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine were 56% versus 46%, 30% versus 24%, 21% versus 19% and 17% versus 16% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. Overall, 173 of the 338 patients (51%) in the dacarbazine arm and 175 of the 337 (52%) of those in the vemurafenib arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, most commonly ipilimumab. Safety data were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib continues to be associated with improved median OS in the BRIM-3 trial after extended follow-up. OS curves converged after ≈3 years, likely as a result of crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib and receipt of subsequent anticancer therapies. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01006980.

Incidence, course, and management of toxicities associated with cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in the coBRIM study.

Background: In the coBRIM phase III trial, the addition of cobimetinib, an MEK inhibitor, to vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, significantly improved progression-free survival [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; P < 0.0001] and overall survival (HR, 0.70; P = 0.005) in advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Here, we report on the incidence, course, and management of key adverse events (AEs) in the coBRIM study. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice a day) and either cobimetinib (60 mg once a day, 21 days on/7 days off) or placebo. In addition to standard safety evaluations, patients underwent regular ophthalmic, cardiac, and dermatologic surveillance examinations. Results: Of 495 patients recruited to the study, 493 patients received treatment and constituted the safety population (cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, 247; vemurafenib, 246). At data cut-off (30 September 2015), median follow-up was 18.5 months. Nearly every patient experienced an AE. In patients who received cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, the frequency of grade ≥3 AEs was higher than in patients who received vemurafenib alone (75% versus 61%). Most AEs, including grade ≥3 AEs, occurred within the first treatment cycle. After the first cycle (28 days), the incidence of common AEs (rash, diarrhoea, photosensitivity, elevated creatine phosphokinase, serous retinopathy, pyrexia, and liver laboratory abnormalities) decreased substantially over time. Most AEs were managed conservatively by supportive care measures, dose modifications of study treatment, and, occasionally, permanent treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: These data indicate that most AEs arising from treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib generally occur early in the treatment course, are mild or moderate and are manageable by patient monitoring, dose modification and supportive care. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01689519.

Vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with brain metastases: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2, multicentre study.

Background: Vemurafenib has shown activity in patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with brain metastases (BM). This phase 2 study evaluated vemurafenib in patients with/without prior treatment for BM. Methods: Patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with BM were enrolled into cohort 1 (previously untreated BM) and cohort 2 (previously treated BM) and received vemurafenib (960 mg BID) until disease progression (PD) or intolerance. Primary endpoint was best overall response rate (BORR) in the brain in cohort 1 that was evaluated using modified RECIST 1.1 criteria using lesions ≥0.5 cm to assess response. Results: 146 patients were treated (cohort 1 n = 90; cohort 2 n = 56), 62% of whom were male. Median (range) time since diagnosis of BM: 1.0 (0-9) month in cohort 1 and 4.2 (1-68) months in cohort 2. Median duration of treatment was 4.1 months (range 0.3-34.5) in cohort 1 and 4.1 months (range 0.2-27.6) in cohort 2. Intracranial BORR in cohort 1 by an independent review committee (IRC) was 18% (2 CRs, 14 PRs). Extracranial BORR by IRC was 33% in cohort 1 and 23% in cohort 2. Median PFS (brain only, investigator-assessed) was 3.7 months (range 0.03-33.4; IQR 1.9-5.6) in cohort 1 and 4.0 months (range 0.3-27.4; IQR 2.2-7.4) in cohort 2. Median OS was 8.9 months (range 0.6-34.5; IQR 4.9-17.0) in cohort 1 and 9.6 months (range 0.7-34.3; IQR 4.5-18.4) in cohort 2. Adverse events (AEs) were similar in type, grade and frequency to other studies of single-agent vemurafenib. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 59 (66%) patients in cohort 1 and 36 (64%) in cohort 2. Overall, 84% of patients died during the study (86% in cohort 1 and 80% in cohort 2), mainly due to disease progression. Conclusions: The study demonstrates clinically meaningful response rates of melanoma BM to vemurafenib, which was well tolerated and without significant CNS toxicity.

Efficacy and safety of nilotinib in patients with KIT-mutated metastatic or inoperable melanoma: final results from the global, single-arm, phase II TEAM trial.

BACKGROUND: The single-arm, phase II Tasigna Efficacy in Advanced Melanoma (TEAM) trial evaluated the KIT-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor nilotinib in patients with KIT-mutated advanced melanoma without prior KIT inhibitor treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with KIT-mutated advanced melanoma were enrolled and treated with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. TEAM originally included a comparator arm of dacarbazine (DTIC)-treated patients; the design was amended to a single-arm trial due to an observed low number of KIT-mutated melanomas. Thirteen patients were randomized to DTIC before the protocol amendment removing this study arm. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), determined according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. RESULTS: ORR was 26.2% (n = 11/42; 95% CI, 13.9%-42.0%), sufficient to reject the null hypothesis (ORR ≤10%). All observed responses were partial responses (PRs; median response duration, 7.1 months). Twenty patients (47.6%) had stable disease and 10 (23.8%) had progressive disease; 1 (2.4%) response was unknown. Ten of the 11 responding patients had exon 11 mutations, four with an L576P mutation. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.2 and 18.0 months, respectively. Three of the 13 patients on DTIC achieved a PR, and another patient had a PR following switch to nilotinib. CONCLUSION: Nilotinib activity in patients with advanced KIT-mutated melanoma was similar to historical data from imatinib-treated patients. DTIC treatment showed potential activity, although the low patient number limits interpretation. Similar to previously reported results with imatinib, nilotinib showed greater activity among patients with an exon 11 mutation, including L576P, suggesting that nilotinib may be an effective treatment option for patients with specific KIT mutations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01028222.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Previous analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Between 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting.

Adjuvant treatment with pegylated interferon α-2a versus low-dose interferon α-2a in patients with high-risk melanoma: a randomized phase III DeCOG trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant treatment with interferon (IFN)-α-2a improved disease-free survival (DFS) and showed a trend for improving overall survival (OS) in melanoma. This trial was designed to examine whether PEG-IFN is superior to IFN with regard to distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), DFS and OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized phase III trial, patients with resected cutaneous melanoma stage IIA(T3a)-IIIB (AJCC 2002) were randomized to receive PEG-IFN (180 µg subcutaneously 1×/week; 24 months) or IFN α-2a (3MIU subcutaneously 3×/week; 24 months). Randomization was stratified for stage, number of metastatic nodes, age and previous IFN treatment. The primary end point was DMFS; secondary end points were OS, DFS, quality of life (QoL) and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 909 patients were enrolled (451 PEG-IFN versus 458 IFN). Neither 5-year DMFS [PEG-IFN 61.0% versus IFN 67.3%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, P = 0.21] nor 5-year OS (PEG-IFN 73.2% versus IFN 75.2%; HR 1.05, P = 0.70) nor 5-year DFS (PEG-IFN 57.3% versus IFN 60.9%; HR 1.09, P = 0.40) showed significant differences. Subgroup analyses in patients ± ulcerated primaries and of different tumor stages did not find differences in DMFS, OS or DFS between the treatment groups. One hundred and eighteen patients (26.2%) in the PEG-IFN and 61 patients (13.3%) in the IFN population did not receive the full dosage and length of treatment due to adverse events (P < 0.001). Leukopenia and elevation of liver enzymes were more common in the PEG-IFN arm (56% versus 23.5% LCP; 19.1% versus 9.4% AST; 33.0% versus 16.5% ALT). QoL was identical for nearly all domains. CONCLUSION: PEG-IFN did not improve the outcome over IFN. A higher percentage of patients under PEG-IFN discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CLINICAL TRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00204529.

Prospective assessment of a gene signature potentially predictive of clinical benefit in metastatic melanoma patients following MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic (PREDICT).

BACKGROUND: Genomic profiling of tumor tissue may aid in identifying predictive or prognostic gene signatures (GS) in some cancers. Retrospective gene expression profiling of melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer led to the characterization of a GS associated with clinical benefit, including improved overall survival (OS), following immunization with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The goal of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the predictive value of the previously characterized GS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label prospective phase II trial ('PREDICT') in patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma. RESULTS: Of 123 subjects who received the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic, 71 (58.7%) displayed the predictive GS (GS+). The 1-year OS rate was 83.1%/83.3% in the GS+/GS- populations. The rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 5.8%/4.1% in GS+/GS- patients. The median time-to-treatment failure was 2.7/2.4 months (GS+/GS-). There was one complete response (GS-) and two partial responses (GS+). The MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic was similarly immunogenic in both populations and had a clinically acceptable safety profile. CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with MAGE-A3-positive unresectable stage IIIB-C/IV-M1a melanoma with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic demonstrated an overall 1-year OS rate of 83.5%. GS- and GS+ patients had similar 1-year OS rates, indicating that in this study, GS was not predictive of outcome. Unexpectedly, the objective response rate was lower in this study than in other studies carried out in the same setting with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. Investigation of a GS to predict clinical benefit to adjuvant MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic treatment is ongoing in another melanoma study.This study is registered at www.clinicatrials.gov NCT00942162.

A randomized, controlled phase III trial of nab-Paclitaxel versus dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel versus dacarbazine in patients with metastatic melanoma was evaluated in a phase III randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with stage IV melanoma received nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review; the secondary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 529 patients were randomized to nab-paclitaxel (n = 264) or dacarbazine (n = 265). Baseline characteristics were well balanced. The majority of patients were men (66%), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0 (71%), and had M1c stage disease (65%). The median PFS (primary end point) was 4.8 months with nab-paclitaxel and 2.5 months with dacarbazine [hazard ratio (HR), 0.792; 95.1% confidence interval (CI) 0.631-0.992; P = 0.044]. The median OS was 12.6 months with nab-paclitaxel and 10.5 months with dacarbazine (HR, 0.897; 95.1% CI 0.738-1.089; P = 0.271). Independently assessed overall response rate was 15% versus 11% (P = 0.239), and disease control rate (DCR) was 39% versus 27% (P = 0.004) for nab-paclitaxel versus dacarbazine, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were neuropathy (nab-paclitaxel, 25% versus dacarbazine, 0%; P < 0.001), and neutropenia (nab-paclitaxel, 20% versus dacarbazine, 10%; P = 0.004). There was no correlation between secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) status and PFS in either treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: nab-Paclitaxel significantly improved PFS and DCR compared with dacarbazine, with a manageable safety profile.

Metastatic melanoma of unknown primary resembles the genotype of cutaneous melanomas.

BACKGROUND: Although 90% of all melanomas are of cutaneous origin, some patients present with melanoma metastases of unknown origin (MUP). Commonly, in these patients an extensive search for the primary tumor is carried out. In the past, genetic analyses have shown substantial differences in pathogenetic mutations among cutaneous, acral and mucosal melanomas. The aim of this study was to assess the mutational status of MUP in order to better characterize the putative origin of the primary tumor and to evaluate potential prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The medical records of 44 patients with MUP were analyzed and a survival analysis was conducted. In total, 66 paraffin samples of 44 patients were analyzed, and in 15 patients multiple metastases were tested. Mutational analysis of the BRAF, NRAS and KIT genes was carried out. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (52.3%) had a mutation in the BRAF gene and 12 patients (23.8%) had a mutation in the NRAS gene. There were neither mutations in the KIT gene. In patients with multiple samples, there was 100% consistency regarding mutational status among the different metastases. The median overall survival (OS) was 86.4 months (39-134). The American Joint Committee on Cancer stage at first diagnosis of metastatic melanoma (stage III versus IV) was significantly associated with OS (P < 0.001), BRAF or NRAS mutation status had no significant prognostic impact on clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MUP resembles the genotype of cutaneous melanoma and not that of mucosal melanomas.

Patient perception of the benefit of a BRAF inhibitor in metastatic melanoma: quality-of-life analyses of the BREAK-3 study comparing dabrafenib with dacarbazine.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized phase III study (BREAK-3), dabrafenib showed prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (median 5.1 versus 2.7 months; hazard ratio = 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.53; P < 0.0001) compared with dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic melanoma. Assessing how these results are transformed into a real health benefit for patients is crucial. METHODS: The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire assessed quality of life (QoL) at baseline and follow-up visits. RESULTS: For DTIC, all functional dimensions except role dimension worsened from baseline at follow-up. For dabrafenib, all functionality dimensions remained stable relative to baseline or improved at week 6; mean change in seven symptom dimensions improved from baseline, with appetite loss, insomnia, nausea and vomiting, and pain showing the greatest improvement. In the DTIC arm, symptom dimensions were unchanged or worsened from baseline for all symptoms except pain (week 6), with the greatest exacerbations observed for fatigue and nausea and vomiting. Mixed-model-repeated measures analyses showed significant (P < 0.05) and/or clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in favor of dabrafenib for emotional and social functioning, nausea and vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea, fatigue, dyspnea, and insomnia at weeks 6 and/or 12. After crossing over to dabrafenib upon progression (n = 35), improvements in all QoL dimensions were evident after receiving dabrafenib for 6 (n = 31) to 12 (n = 25) weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This first reported QoL analysis for a BRAF inhibitor in metastatic melanoma demonstrates that the high tumor response rates and PFS superiority of dabrafenib over DTIC is not only a theoretical advantage, but also transforms in a rapid functional and symptomatic benefit for the patient. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01227889.