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.).

Circulating tumour DNA in patients with advanced melanoma treated with dabrafenib or dabrafenib plus trametinib: a clinical validation study.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma lacks validated blood-based biomarkers for monitoring and predicting treatment efficacy. Cell-free circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is a promising biomarker; however, various detection methods have been used, and, to date, no large studies have examined the association between serial changes in ctDNA and survival after BRAF, MEK, or BRAF plus MEK inhibitor therapy. We aimed to evaluate whether baseline ctDNA concentrations and kinetics could predict survival outcomes. METHODS: In this clinical validation study, we used analytically validated droplet digital PCR assays to measure BRAFV600-mutant ctDNA in pretreatment and on-treatment plasma samples from patients aged 18 years or older enrolled in two clinical trials. COMBI-d (NCT01584648) was a double-blind, randomised phase 3 study of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib plus placebo in previously untreated patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. COMBI-MB (NCT02039947) was an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma and brain metastases. Patients in cohort A of COMBI-MB had asymptomatic brain metastases, no previous local brain-directed therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Biomarker analysis was a prespecified exploratory endpoint in both trials and performed in the intention-to-treat populations in COMBI-d and COMBI-MB. We investigated the association between mutant copy number (baseline or week 4 or zero conversion status) and efficacy endpoints (progression-free survival, overall survival, and best overall response). We used Cox models, Kaplan-Meier plots, and log-rank tests to explore the association of pretreatment ctDNA concentrations with progression-free survival and overall survival. The effect of additional prognostic variables such as lactate dehydrogenase was also investigated in addition to the mutant copy number. FINDINGS: In COMBI-d, pretreatment plasma samples were available from 345 (82%) of 423 patients and on-treatment (week 4) plasma samples were available from 224 (53%) of 423 patients. In cohort A of COMBI-MB, pretreatment and on-treatment samples were available from 38 (50%) of 76 patients with intracranial and extracranial metastatic melanoma. ctDNA was detected in pretreatment samples from 320 (93%) of 345 patients (COMBI-d) and 34 (89%) of 38 patients (COMBI-MB). When assessed as a continuous variable, elevated baseline BRAFV600 mutation-positive ctDNA concentration was associated with worse overall survival outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1·13 [95% CI 1·09-1·18], p<0·0001 by univariate analysis), independent of treatment group and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentrations (1·08 [1·03-1·13], p=0·0020), in COMBI-d. A ctDNA cutoff point of 64 copies per mL of plasma stratified patients enrolled in COMBI-d as high risk or low risk with respect to survival outcomes (HR 1·74 [95% CI 1·37-2·21], p<0·0001 for progression-free survival; 2·23 [1·73-2·87], p<0·0001 for overall survival) and was validated in the COMBI-MB cohort (3·20 [1·39-7·34], p=0·0047 for progression-free survival; 2·94 [1·18-7·32], p=0·016 for overall survival). In COMBI-d, undetectable ctDNA at week 4 was significantly associated with extended progression-free and overall survival, particularly in patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase concentrations (HR 1·99 [95% CI 1·08-3·64], p=0·027 for progression-free survival; 2·38 [1·24-4·54], p=0·0089 for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: Pretreatment and on-treatment BRAFV600-mutant ctDNA measurements could serve as independent, predictive biomarkers of clinical outcome with targeted therapy. FUNDING: Novartis.

PRISM protocol: a randomised phase II trial of nivolumab in combination with alternatively scheduled ipilimumab in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy. METHODS: The PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored. DISCUSSION: The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017). TRIAL STATUS: At the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.

Phase I study of nintedanib incorporating dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This open-label phase I dose-escalation study investigated the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) effects of the oral angiokinase inhibitor nintedanib in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Nintedanib was administered once daily continuously, starting at 100 mg and later amended to allow evaluation of 250 mg b.i.d. The primary endpoint was maximum tolerated dose (MTD). DCE-MRI studies were performed at baseline and on days 2 and 28. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients received nintedanib 100-450 mg once daily (n = 40) or 250 mg b.i.d. (n = 11). Asymptomatic reversible liver enzyme elevations (grade 3) were dose limiting in 2 of 5 patients at 450 mg once daily. At 250 mg b.i.d., 2 of 11 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 liver enzyme elevation and gastrointestinal symptoms). Common toxicities included fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain (mainly grade ≤2). Among 45 patients, 22 (49%) achieved stable disease; 7 remained on treatment for >6 months. DCE-MRI of target lesions revealed effects in some patients at 200 and ≥400 mg once daily. CONCLUSION: Nintedanib is well tolerated by patients with advanced solid malignancies, with MTD defined as 250 mg b.i.d., and can induce changes in DCE-MRI. Disease stabilization >6 months was observed in 7 of 51 patients.

Study design and rationale for a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to assess the efficacy of selumetinib (AZD6244; ARRY-142886) in combination with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma (SUMIT).

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma is characterised by mutations in GNAQ and GNA11, resulting in Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK pathway activation. Treatment with selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), a MEK1/2 inhibitor, results in antitumour effects in uveal melanoma pre-clinical models. A randomised phase II trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR) with selumetinib monotherapy versus chemotherapy with temozolomide or dacarbazine in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Pre-clinically, selumetinib in combination with alkylating agents enhanced antitumour activity compared with chemotherapy alone. We hypothesise that selumetinib in combination with dacarbazine will result in improved clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma versus dacarbazine alone. METHODS/DESIGN: SUMIT is a randomised, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study assessing the efficacy and safety of selumetinib in combination with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma who have not received prior systemic therapy. Primary endpoint is PFS. Secondary endpoints include objective RR, duration of response, change in tumour size at Week 6, overall survival, safety and tolerability. Exploratory endpoints include efficacy in tumours with GNAQ or GNA11 mutations. Eligible patients must have: ≥1 lesion that can be accurately measured at baseline, and is suitable for accurate repeated measurements; ECOG performance status 0-1; life expectancy>12 weeks. Mutation status for GNAQ/GNA11 will be assessed retrospectively. An estimated 128 patients from approximately 50 sites globally will be randomised (3:1) to selumetinib 75 mg twice daily or placebo in combination with dacarbazine 1000 mg/m(2) on Day 1 of every 21-day cycle until objective disease progression, intolerable toxicity or occurrence of another discontinuation criterion. Randomisation will be stratified by the presence/absence of liver metastases. Tumours will be evaluated by RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks. All patients have the option of receiving selumetinib with or without dacarbazine at disease progression. Study enrolment began in April 2014 and is expected to complete in early 2015. DISCUSSION: Treatment of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma represents an area of high unmet medical need. This study evaluating selumetinib in combination with dacarbazine was designed with input from the US FDA, and is the first potential registration trial to be conducted in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (Date of registration, October 10, 2013) REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01974752 Trial abbreviation: SUMIT.

Adjuvant bevacizumab in patients with melanoma at high risk of recurrence (AVAST-M): preplanned interim results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets VEGF, has shown restricted activity in patients with advanced melanoma. We aimed to assess the role of bevacizumab as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. We report results from the preplanned interim analysis. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 48 centres in the UK between July 18, 2007, and March 29, 2012. Patients aged 16 years or older with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (AJCC) stage IIB, IIC, and III cutaneous melanoma were randomly allocated (1:1), via a central, computer-based minimisation procedure, to receive intravenous bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg, every 3 weeks for 1 year, or to observation. Randomisation was stratified by Breslow thickness of the primary tumour, N stage according to AJCC staging criteria, ulceration of the primary tumour, and patient sex. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included disease-free interval, distant-metastases interval and quality of life. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered as an International Standardised Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN81261306. FINDINGS: 1343 patients were randomised to either the bevacizumab group (n=671) or the observation group (n=672). Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 16-37) in the bevacizumab group and 25 months (17-37) in the observation group. At the time of interim analysis, 286 (21%) of 1343 enrolled patients had died: 140 (21%) of 671 patients in the bevacizumab group, and 146 (22%) of 672 patients in the observation group. 134 (96%) of patients in the bevacizumab group died because of melanoma versus 139 (95%) in the observation group. We noted no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.78-1.22; p=0.76); this finding persisted after adjustment for stratification variables (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.81-1.29; p=0.83). Median duration of treatment with bevacizumab was 51 weeks (IQR 21-52) and dose intensity was 86% (41-96), showing good tolerability. 180 grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded in 101 (15%) of 671 patients in the bevacizumab group, and 36 (5%) of 672 patients in the observation group. Bevacizumab resulted in a higher incidence of grade 3 hypertension than did observation (41 [6%] vs one [<1%]). There was an improvement in disease-free interval for patients in the bevacizumab group compared with those in the observation group (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98, p=0.03), but no significant difference between groups for distant-metastasis-free interval (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73-1.06, p=0.18). No significant differences were noted between treatment groups in the standardised area under the curve for any of the quality-of-life scales over 36 months. Three adverse drug reactions were regarded as both serious and unexpected: one patient had optic neuritis after the first bevacizumab infusion, a second patient had persistent erectile dysfunction, and a third patient died of a haemopericardium after receiving two bevacizumab infusions and was later identified to have had significant predisposing cardiovascular risk factors. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab has promising tolerability. Longer follow-up is needed to identify an effect on the primary endpoint of overall survival at 5 years.

Role of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in the treatment of metastatic melanoma.

Approximately 50% of patients with cutaneous metastatic melanoma harbor a somatic BRAF mutation. BRAF inhibitors are now established in the treatment paradigm of BRAF mutant melanoma, following the approval of vemurafenib by the US FDA in 2011. The vast majority of patients obtain some degree of tumor shrinkage with oral BRAF inhibitors, and responses are often rapid. However, resistance inevitably develops, with a median progression-free survival of 5-7 months. The oral MEK inhibitor trametinib has also shown activity in BRAF mutant melanoma in Phase III trials. We review the rationale for treating BRAF mutant melanoma with trametinib, as single-agent therapy and in combination with BRAF inhibitors, as well as the clinical data to date.

Regorafenib for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable renal-cell carcinoma: a single-group phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib inhibits VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3 and PDGF receptors like other anti-angiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors approved for treatment of advanced renal-cell cancer. Regorafenib also inhibits other potentially important angiogenic kinases like TIE2, activation of which is thought to be important in tumour escape mechanisms. This phase 2, open-label, non-randomised study assessed the safety and efficacy of the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib for treatment of renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: Patients were recruited from 18 academic oncology centres across Europe and USA. Patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma received oral regorafenib (160 mg per day) in repeating cycles of 3 weeks on, 1 week off until disease progression or until patients met the criteria for removal from study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective overall response, assessed in all patients who were evaluable for response. The trial has finished. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00664326. FINDINGS: The study was done between April 30, 2008, and June 1, 2011. We screened 64 patients, of whom 49 received regorafenib. Median duration of treatment was 7·1 months (range 0·7-34·4, IQR 2·5-18·0) and at the time of data cutoff, six patients (12%) were still receiving treatment. 48 patients were assessable for tumour response. 19 patients (39·6%, 90% CI 27·7-52·5) had an objective response, all of which were partial responses. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 48 patients (98%) and drug-related serious adverse events in 17 (35%). Grade 3 drug-related adverse events were common, most frequently hand and foot skin reaction (16 patients, 33%), diarrhoea (five patients, 10%), renal failure (five patients, 10%), fatigue (four patients, 8%), and hypertension (three patients, 6%). Two patients had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events: two cardiac ischaemia or infarction, one hypomagnesaemia, and one pain in the chest or thorax. Four patients died during study treatment or within 30 days of last dose, of which two were deemed likely to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib has antitumour activity as first-line treatment for metastatic or unresectable renal-cell carcinoma. The drug's safety profile requires close monitoring.

Tebentafusp: a first-in-class treatment for metastatic uveal melanoma.

Tebentafusp is a first-in-class immunotherapy agent that comprises an engineered T-cell receptor targeting a gp100 epitope presented by human leukocyte antigen-A*02:01 cells, fused to an anti-CD3 single-chain variable fragment. Tebentafusp is both the first bispecific T-cell engager to show efficacy in the treatment of advanced solid cancer and the first anti-cancer treatment to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in patients with uveal melanoma (UM). This review article will focus on the clinical development of tebentafusp, the mechanism of action and resultant evolution of the management of advanced UM.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results from CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

Spartalizumab or placebo in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma: exploratory biomarker analyses from a randomized phase 3 trial (COMBI-i).

BACKGROUND: The randomized phase 3 COMBI-i trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with spartalizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram) vs placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in the overall population of patients with unresectable/metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. This prespecified exploratory biomarker analysis was performed to identify subgroups that may derive greater treatment benefit from sparta-DabTram. METHODS: In COMBI-i (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02967692), 532 patients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally two times daily and trametinib 2 mg orally one time daily or placebo-DabTram. Baseline/on-treatment pharmacodynamic markers were assessed via flow cytometry-based immunophenotyping and plasma cytokine profiling. Baseline programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status and T-cell phenotype were assessed via immunohistochemistry; BRAF V600 mutation type, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) via DNA sequencing; gene expression signatures via RNA sequencing; and CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio via immunophenotyping. RESULTS: Extensive biomarker analyses were possible in approximately 64% to 90% of the intention-to-treat population, depending on sample availability and assay. Subgroups based on PD-L1 status/TMB or T-cell inflammation did not show significant differences in PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram vs placebo-DabTram, although T-cell inflammation was prognostic across treatment arms. Subgroups defined by BRAF V600K mutation (HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.99)), detectable ctDNA shedding (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.96)), or CD4+/CD8+ ratio above median (HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.84)) derived greater PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram vs placebo-DabTram. In a multivariate analysis, ctDNA emerged as strongly prognostic (p=0.007), while its predictive trend did not reach significance; in contrast, CD4+/CD8+ ratio was strongly predictive (interaction p=0.0131). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the feasibility of large-scale comprehensive biomarker analyses in the context of a global phase 3 study. T-cell inflammation was prognostic but not predictive of sparta-DabTram benefit, as patients with high T-cell inflammation already benefit from targeted therapy alone. Baseline ctDNA shedding also emerged as a strong independent prognostic variable, with predictive trends consistent with established measures of disease burden such as lactate dehydrogenase levels. CD4+/CD8+ T-cell ratio was significantly predictive of PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram but requires further validation as a biomarker in melanoma. Taken together with previous observations, further study of checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combination in patients with higher disease burden may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02967692.

Randomized Phase III Trial Evaluating Spartalizumab Plus Dabrafenib and Trametinib for BRAF V600-Mutant Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data suggest the combination of an anti-programmed death receptor 1 antibody plus dabrafenib and trametinib to have superior antitumor activity compared with dabrafenib plus trametinib alone. These observations are supported by translational evidence suggesting that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus targeted therapy may improve treatment outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-i is a phase III trial evaluating spartalizumab, an anti-programmed death receptor 1 antibody, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram), versus placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. METHODS: Patients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally twice daily and trametinib 2 mg orally once daily or placebo-DabTram. Participants were age ≥ 18 years with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary end point (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02967692). RESULTS: At data cutoff (July 1, 2020), the median progression-free survival was 16.2 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 23.9 months) in the sparta-DabTram arm versus 12.0 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 15.4 months) in the placebo-DabTram arm (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.03]; P = .042 [one-sided; nonsignificant]). The objective response rates were 69% (183 of 267 patients) versus 64% (170 of 265 patients), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 55% (146 of 267) of patients in the sparta-DabTram arm and 33% (88 of 264) in the placebo-DabTram arm. CONCLUSION: The study did not meet its primary end point; broad first-line use of sparta-DabTram is not supported by these results. Further biomarker-driven investigation may identify patient subpopulations who could benefit from checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combinations.

Role of Tumor-Infiltrating B Cells in Clinical Outcome of Patients with Melanoma Treated With Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib.

PURPOSE: Although patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma can experience long-term survival with BRAF- and MEK-targeted agents or immune checkpoint inhibitors over 5 years, resistance develops in most patients. There is a distinct lack of pretherapeutic biomarkers to identify which patients are likely to benefit from each therapy type. Most research has focused on the predictive role of T cells in antitumor responses as opposed to B cells. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted prespecified exploratory biomarker analysis using gene expression profiling and digital pathology in 146 patients with previously untreated BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma from the randomized, phase III COMBI-v trial and treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib who had available tumor specimens from screening. RESULTS: Baseline cell-cycle gene expression signature was associated with progression-free survival (P = 0.007). Patients with high T-cell/low B-cell gene signatures had improved median overall survival (not reached [95% confidence interval (CI), 33.8 months-not reached]) compared with patients with high T-cell/high B-cell signatures (19.1 months; 95% CI, 13.4-38.6 months). Patients with high B-cell signatures had high B-cell infiltration into the tumor compartment, corresponding with decreased MAPK activity and increased expression of immunosuppressive markers. CONCLUSIONS: B cells may serve as a potential biomarker to predict clinical outcome in patients with advanced melanoma treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib. As separate studies have shown an opposite effect for B-cell levels and response to immunotherapy, B cells may serve as a potential biomarker to facilitate treatment selection. Further validation in a larger patient cohort is needed.

Combined PD-1, BRAF and MEK inhibition in advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma: safety run-in and biomarker cohorts of COMBI-i.

Immune and targeted therapies achieve long-term survival in metastatic melanoma; however, new treatment strategies are needed to improve patients' outcomes1,2. We report on the efficacy, safety and biomarker analysis from the single-arm safety run-in (part 1; n = 9) and biomarker (part 2; n = 27) cohorts of the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 COMBI-i trial (NCT02967692) of the anti-PD-1 antibody spartalizumab, in combination with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and MEK inhibitor trametinib. Patients (n = 36) had previously untreated BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. In part 1, the recommended phase 3 regimen was identified based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; primary endpoint): 400 mg of spartalizumab every 4 weeks plus 150 mg of dabrafenib twice daily plus 2 mg of trametinib once daily. Part 2 characterized changes in PD-L1 levels and CD8+ cells following treatment (primary endpoint), and analyzed additional biomarkers. Assessments of efficacy and safety were key secondary endpoints (median follow-up, 24.3 months). Spartalizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib led to an objective response rate (ORR) of 78%, including 44% complete responses (CRs). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were experienced by 72% of patients. All patients had temporary dose modifications, and 17% permanently discontinued all three study drugs due to TRAEs. Early progression-free survival (PFS) events were associated with low tumor mutational burden/T cell-inflamed gene expression signature (GES) or high immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) GES levels at baseline; an immunosuppressive TME may also preclude CR. Overall, the efficacy, safety and on-treatment biomarker modulations associated with spartalizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib are promising, and biomarkers that may predict long-term benefit were identified.

Mycophenolate mofetil alongside high-dose corticosteroids: optimizing the management of combination immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (IO) induced colitis is primarily managed with corticosteroids. Most patients have a rapid resolution of symptoms and do not require additional immunosuppressants. Many patients, however, require prolonged corticosteroid courses to maintain control of toxicity. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is the prodrug of mycophenolic acid; which in turn directly inhibits activated T and B lymphocytes. MMF, in addition to corticosteroids, may enable reduction of corticosteroids without precipitating resurgence of colitis. Metastatic melanoma patients between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017 with combination IO-induced colitis were managed with a novel treatment algorithm: upfront oral enteric-coated MMF alongside high-dose corticosteroids. Outcome measures included incidence of colitis flare, time to grade 1 colitis, time to patient-reported normal bowel habit and overall cumulative corticosteroid exposure. Thirteen patients developed high-grade combination IO-induced colitis; 11 were managed with the combination of high-dose corticosteroid and MMF. Median patient age was 59 (range: 28-73) years. Four (36%) developed flare of colitis; flares occurred at a median of 11 (interquartile range: 4.5-16.75) days. All colitis flares responded fully to infliximab (5 mg/kg). The remaining seven patients did not develop colitis flare during corticosteroid wean. All patients were successfully weaned from corticosteroids and none had a resurgence of colitis at 8 weeks following discontinuation of MMF. Concomitant enteric-coated MMF alongside high-dose corticosteroids may hasten the improvement of high-grade colitis to normal bowel habit and reduce the incidence of colitis flare.

Metastatic disease from uveal melanoma: treatment options and future prospects.

Uveal melanoma represents ∼85% of all ocular melanomas and up to 50% of patients develop metastatic disease. Metastases are most frequently localised to the liver and, as few patients are candidates for potentially curative surgery, this is associated with a poor prognosis. There is currently little published evidence for the optimal management and treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma and the lack of effective therapies in this setting has led to the widespread use of systemic treatments for patients with cutaneous melanoma. Uveal and cutaneous melanomas are intrinsically different diseases and so dedicated management strategies and therapies for uveal melanoma are much needed. This review explores the biology of uveal melanoma and how this relates to ongoing trials of targeted therapies in the metastatic disease setting. In addition, we consider the options to optimise patient management and care.

Preclinical Evidence That Trametinib Enhances the Response to Antiangiogenic Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Sunitinib and pazopanib are antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) used to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the ability of these drugs to extend progression-free and overall survival in this patient population is limited by drug resistance. It is possible that treatment outcomes in RCC patients could be improved by rationally combining TKIs with other agents. Here, we address whether inhibition of the Ras-Raf-MEK-ERK1/2 pathway is a rational means to improve the response to TKIs in RCC. Using a xenograft model of RCC, we found that tumors that are resistant to sunitinib have a significantly increased angiogenic response compared with tumors that are sensitive to sunitinib in vivo. We also observed significantly increased levels of phosphorylated ERK1/2 in the vasculature of resistant tumors, when compared with sensitive tumors. These data suggested that the Ras-Raf-MEK-ERK1/2 pathway, an important driver of angiogenesis in endothelial cells, remains active in the vasculature of TKI-resistant tumors. Using an in vitro angiogenesis assay, we identified that the MEK inhibitor (MEKI) trametinib has potent antiangiogenic activity. We then show that, when trametinib is combined with a TKI in vivo, more effective suppression of tumor growth and tumor angiogenesis is achieved than when either drug is utilized alone. In conclusion, we provide preclinical evidence that combining a TKI, such as sunitinib or pazopanib, with a MEKI, such as trametinib, is a rational and efficacious treatment regimen for RCC.

Trametinib in metastatic melanoma.

The treatment of metastatic melanoma is rapidly changing. In 2002, the BRAF mutation was described in over 50% of melanomas and led to the first BRAF inhibitor, vemurafenib, being approved for clinical use in 2011. Clinical responses are often rapid but duration of response is limited due to the development of resistance. MEK is the next downstream target from BRAF in the MAP kinase pathway. Trametinib was the first MEK inhibitor to be approved for clinical use in 2013. Preclinical studies demonstrated a delay in resistance and a reduction in cutaneous toxicity by combined BRAF and MEK inhibition. Here, we review the rationale for clinical development of trametinib and give an update on recent clinical trials of trametinib alone and in combination with braf inhibition in melanoma.

Vemurafenib in melanoma.

The incidence of malignant melanoma is increasing annually. Early stages can be cured with surgical intervention but metastatic disease has generally had a dismal prognosis with few effective interventions. A half of all melanomas possess a BRAF mutation, which can be targeted by specific inhibitors. Vemurafenib is an orally active, purposely designed mutant BRAF inhibitor, which has recently been shown to have a survival benefit measured in months in metastatic patients. In this article, the authors discuss the scientific rationale, drug development process and clinical trials that have led to vemurafenib becoming the first BRAF inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with mutant BRAF metastatic melanoma.

Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

PURPOSE: In phase I/II trials, the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4-blocking monoclonal antibody tremelimumab induced durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced melanoma. This phase III study evaluated overall survival (OS) and other safety and efficacy end points in patients with advanced melanoma treated with tremelimumab or standard-of-care chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive, unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to tremelimumab (15 mg/kg once every 90 days) or physician's choice of standard-of-care chemotherapy (temozolomide or dacarbazine). RESULTS: In all, 655 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. The test statistic crossed the prespecified futility boundary at second interim analysis after 340 deaths, but survival follow-up continued. At final analysis with 534 events, median OS by intent to treat was 12.6 months (95% CI, 10.8 to 14.3) for tremelimumab and 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.36 to 11.96) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.88; P = .127). Objective response rates were similar in the two arms: 10.7% in the tremelimumab arm and 9.8% in the chemotherapy arm. However, response duration (measured from date of random assignment) was significantly longer after tremelimumab (35.8 v 13.7 months; P = .0011). Diarrhea, pruritus, and rash were the most common treatment-related adverse events in the tremelimumab arm; 7.4% had endocrine toxicities. Seven deaths in the tremelimumab arm and one in the chemotherapy arm were considered treatment related by either investigators or sponsor. CONCLUSION: This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant survival advantage of treatment with tremelimumab over standard-of-care chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma.