COLUMBUS 5-year update: a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Here, we summarize the 5-year results from part 1 of the COLUMBUS clinical study, which looked at the combination treatment of encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a specific type of skin cancer called melanoma. Encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®) are medicines used to treat a type of melanoma that has a change in the BRAF gene, called advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Participants with advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma took either encorafenib plus binimetinib together (COMBO group), compared with encorafenib alone (ENCO group) or vemurafenib (ZELBORAF®) alone (VEMU group). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this 5-year update, more participants in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse after 5 years than those in the VEMU and ENCO groups. Patients in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse when they: Had less advanced cancer Were able to do more daily activities Had normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels Had fewer organs with tumors before treatment After treatment, fewer participants in the COMBO group received additional anticancer treatment than participants in the VEMU and ENCO groups. The number of participants who reported severe side effects was similar for each treatment. The side effects caused by the drugs in the COMBO group decreased over time. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, this 5-year update confirmed that people with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma that has spread to other parts of the body and who took encorafenib plus binimetinib were alive for longer without their disease getting worse than those who took vemurafenib or encorafenib alone. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01909453 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The Abscopal Effect in the Era of Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Therapy targeting immune checkpoints represents an integral part of the treatment for patients suffering from advanced melanoma. However, the mechanisms of resistance are responsible for a lower therapeutic outcome than expected. Concerning melanoma, insufficient stimulation of the immune system by tumour neoantigens is a likely explanation. As shown previously, radiotherapy is a known option for increasing the production of tumour neoantigens and their release into the microenvironment. Consequently, neoantigens could be recognized by antigen presenting cells (APCs) and subjected to effector T lymphocytes. Enhancing the immune reaction can trigger the therapeutic response also at distant metastases, a phenomenon known as an abscopal effect (from "ab scopus", that is, away from the target). To illustrate this, we present the case of a 78-year old male treated by anti-CTLA-4/ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma. The patient received the standard four doses of ipilimumab administered every three weeks. However, the control CT scans detected disease progression in the form of axillary lymph nodes metastasis and liver metastasis two months after ipilimumab. At this stage, palliative cryotherapy of the skin metastases was initiated to alleviate the tumour burden. Surprisingly, the effect of cryotherapy was also observed in untreated metastases and deep subcutaneous metastases on the back. Moreover, we observed the disease remission of axillary lymph nodes and liver metastasis two months after the cryotherapy. The rarity of the abscopal effect suggests that even primed anti-tumour CD8+ T cells cannot overcome the tumour microenvironment's suppressive effect and execute immune clearance. However, the biological mechanism underlying this phenomenon is yet to be elucidated. The elicitation of a systemic response by cryotherapy with documented abscopal effect was rarely reported, although the immune response induction is presumably similar to a radiotherapy-induced one. The report is a combination case study and review of the abscopal effect in melanoma treated with checkpoint inhibitors.

Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib alone improved progression-free survival compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma in the COLUMBUS trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint of overall survival. METHODS: COLUMBUS was a two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma, BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of interactive response technology to receive oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). Randomisation was stratified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, ECOG performance status, and BRAF mutation status. The primary outcome of the trial, progression-free survival with encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib, was reported previously. Here we present the prespecified interim overall survival analysis. Efficacy analyses were by intent to treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Part 2 of the study was initiated at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration to better understand the contribution of binimetinib to the combination therapy by comparing encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily with encorafenib 300 mg once daily alone. Results of part 2 will be published separately. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive encorafenib plus binimetinib (n=192), encorafenib (n=194), or vemurafenib (n=191). Median follow-up for overall survival was 36·8 months (95% CI 35·9-37·5). Median overall survival was 33·6 months (95% CI 24·4-39·2) with encorafenib plus binimetinib and 16·9 months (14·0-24·5) with vemurafenib (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·47-0·79]; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events did not change substantially from the first report; those seen in more than 5% of patients treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (14 [7%]), and hypertension (12 [6%]); those seen with encorafenib alone were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and with vemurafenib the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). One death in the combination treatment group was considered by the investigator to be possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib provided clinically meaningful efficacy with good tolerability as shown by improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with vemurafenib. These data suggest that the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is likely to become an important therapeutic option in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. METHODS: COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8-16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0-18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6-8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41-0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator. INTERPRETATION: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, MAGE-A3-positive, stage III melanoma (DERMA): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite newly approved treatments, metastatic melanoma remains a life-threatening condition. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic in patients with stage IIIB or IIIC melanoma in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: DERMA was a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done in 31 countries and 263 centres. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had histologically proven, completely resected, stage IIIB or IIIC, MAGE-A3-positive cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator sites were done centrally via the internet. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive up to 13 intramuscular injections of recombinant MAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic; 300 µg MAGE-A3 antigen plus 420 µg CpG 7909 reconstituted in AS01B to a total volume of 0·5 mL), or placebo, over a 27-month period: five doses at 3-weekly intervals, followed by eight doses at 12-weekly intervals. The co-primary outcomes were disease-free survival in the overall population and in patients with a potentially predictive gene signature (GS-positive) identified previously and validated here via an adaptive signature design. The final analyses included all patients who had received at least one dose of study treatment; analyses for efficacy were in the as-randomised population and for safety were in the as-treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00796445. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2008, and Sept 19, 2011, 3914 patients were screened, 1391 randomly assigned, and 1345 started treatment (n=895 for MAGE-A3 and n=450 for placebo). At final analysis (data cutoff May 23, 2013), median follow-up was 28·0 months [IQR 23·3-35·5] in the MAGE-A3 group and 28·1 months [23·7-36·9] in the placebo group. Median disease-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·0-11·9) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·2 months (8·6-14·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·01, 0·88-1·17, p=0·86). In the GS-positive population, median disease-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 5·7-17·6) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·6 months (5·6-22·3) in the placebo group (HR 1·11, 0·83-1·49, p=0·48). Within the first 31 days of treatment, adverse events of grade 3 or worse were reported by 126 (14%) of 894 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 56 (12%) of 450 patients in the placebo group, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse by 36 (4%) patients given MAGE-A3 vs six (1%) patients given placebo, and at least one serious adverse event by 14% of patients in both groups (129 patients given MAGE-A3 and 64 patients given placebo). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neoplasms (33 [4%] patients in the MAGE-A3 group vs 17 [4%] patients in the placebo group), general disorders and administration site conditions (25 [3%] for MAGE-A3 vs four [<1%] for placebo) and infections and infestations (17 [2%] for MAGE-A3 vs seven [2%] for placebo). No deaths were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: An antigen-specific immunotherapeutic alone was not efficacious in this clinical setting. Based on these findings, development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in melanoma has been stopped. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib.

BACKGROUND: The BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown efficacy as monotherapies in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Combining dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, enhanced antitumor activity in this population of patients. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) or vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At the preplanned interim overall survival analysis, which was performed after 77% of the total number of expected events occurred, the overall survival rate at 12 months was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67 to 77) in the combination-therapy group and 65% (95% CI, 59 to 70) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89; P=0.005). The prespecified interim stopping boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped for efficacy in July 2014. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the combination-therapy group and 7.3 months in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-therapy group and 51% in the vemurafenib group (P<0.001). Rates of severe adverse events and study-drug discontinuations were similar in the two groups. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma occurred in 1% of patients in the combination-therapy group and 18% of those in the vemurafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

Clear cell sarcoma of vulva. A case report.

We report the case of a 67-year-old female with clear cell sarcoma (CCS) of the vulva. Grossly, the tumor was a partly exophytical vulvar mass, measuring 20 x 15 cm. At the time of presentation, the patient showed metastases to the lung, inguinal and pelvic lymph nodes. Histologically, the tumor consisted of oval or spindle cells with only mild nuclear pleomorphism and rare mitoses (up to 2/10 HPF). The cytoplasm was pale eosinophilic or clear. The tumor cells were arranged in confluent sheets. There were large areas of necrosis and surface ulceration. Immunohistochemically, the tumor cells showed expression of S-100 protein and focal melan A and HMB45 expression. Fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis revealed rearrangement of the EWSR1 gene. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of CCS arising in the vulva.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicentre, safety study.

BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, compared with dacarbazine, shows improved response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma that has a BRAF(V600) mutation. We assessed vemurafenib in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma with BRAF(V600) mutations who had few treatment options. METHODS: In an open-label, multicentre study, patients with untreated or previously treated melanoma and a BRAF(V600) mutation received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was safety. All analyses were done on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of vemurafenib. This report is the third interim analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307397. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2013, 3226 patients were enrolled in 44 countries. 3222 patients received at least one dose of vemurafenib (safety population). At data cutoff, 868 (27%) patients were on study treatment and 2354 (73%) had withdrawn, mainly because of disease progression. Common adverse events of all grades included rash (1592 [49%]), arthralgia (1259 [39%]), fatigue (1093 [34%]), photosensitivity reaction (994 [31%]), alopecia (826 [26%]), and nausea (628 [19%]). 1480 (46%) patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (389 [12%]), rash (155 [5%]), liver function abnormalities (165 [5%]), arthralgia (106 [3%]), and fatigue (93 [3%]). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were reported more frequently in patients aged 75 years and older (n=257; 152 [59%, 95% CI 53-65] and ten [4%, 2-7], respectively) than in those younger than 75 years (n=2965; 1286 [43%, 42-45] and 82 [3%, 2-3], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Vemurafenib safety in this diverse population of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma, who are more representative of routine clinical practice, was consistent with the safety profile shown in the pivotal trials of this drug. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff). METHODS: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed. RESULTS: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

Cultivation-dependent plasticity of melanoma phenotype.

Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive tumor with increasing incidence and high mortality. The importance of immunohistochemistry in diagnosis of the primary tumor and in early identification of metastases in lymphatic nodes is enormous; however melanoma phenotype is frequently variable and thus several markers must be employed simultaneously. The purposes of this study are to describe changes of phenotype of malignant melanoma in vitro and in vivo and to investigate whether changes of environmental factors mimicking natural conditions affect the phenotype of melanoma cells and can revert the typical in vitro loss of diagnostic markers. The influence of microenvironment was studied by means of immunocytochemistry on co-cultures of melanoma cells with melanoma-associated fibroblast and/or in conditioned media. The markers typical for melanoma (HMB45, Melan-A, Tyrosinase) were lost in malignant cells isolated from malignant effusion; however, tumor metastases shared identical phenotype with primary tumor (all markers positive). The melanoma cell lines also exerted reduced phenotype in vitro. The only constantly present diagnostic marker observed in our experiment was S100 protein and, in lesser extent, also Nestin. The phenotype loss was reverted under the influence of melanoma-associated fibroblast and/or both types of conditioned media. Loss of some markers of melanoma cell phenotype is not only of diagnostic significance, but it can presumably also contribute to biological behavior of melanoma. The presented study shows how the conditions of cultivation of melanoma cells can influence their phenotype. This observation can have some impact on considerations about the role of microenvironment in tumor biology.

Contribution of MEK Inhibition to BRAF/MEK Inhibitor Combination Treatment of BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Part 2 of the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III COLUMBUS Trial.

PURPOSE: In COLUMBUS part 1, patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice a day (COMBO450), vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily (ENCO300). As previously reported, COMBO450 improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus vemurafenib (part 1 primary end point) and ENCO300 (part 1 key secondary end point; not statistically significant). Part 2, requested by the US Food and Drug Administration, evaluated the contribution of binimetinib by maintaining the same encorafenib dosage in the combination (encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [COMBO300]) and ENCO300 arms. METHODS: In part 2, patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to COMBO300 or ENCO300. ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) data were combined, per protocol, for PFS analysis (key secondary end point) by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Other analyses included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients received COMBO300, and 86 received ENCO300. Per protocol, ENCO300 arms (parts 1 and 2 combined) were also evaluated (n = 280). The median follow-up for ENCO300 was 40.8 months (part 1) and 57.1 months (part 2). The median PFS (95% CI) was 12.9 months (10.9 to 14.9) for COMBO300 versus 9.2 months (7.4 to 11.1) for ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) and 7.4 months (5.6 to 9.2) for ENCO300 (part 2). The hazard ratio (95% CI) for COMBO300 was 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92; two-sided P = .003) versus ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2). The ORR by BIRC (95% CI) was 68% (62 to 74) and 51% (45 to 57) for COMBO300 and ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2), respectively. COMBO300 had greater relative dose intensity and fewer grade 3/4 adverse events than ENCO300. CONCLUSION: COMBO300 improved PFS, ORR, and tolerability compared with ENCO300, confirming the contribution of binimetinib to efficacy and safety.

COLUMBUS 5-Year Update: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial of Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib Versus Vemurafenib or Encorafenib in Patients With BRAF V600-Mutant Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Combination treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has demonstrated benefits on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and is a standard of care for the treatment of advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year update from the COLUMBUS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01909453). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, untreated or progressed after first-line immunotherapy, were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily. An updated analysis was conducted 65 months after the last patient was randomly assigned. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned: 192 to encorafenib plus binimetinib, 191 to vemurafenib, and 194 to encorafenib. The 5-year PFS and OS rates with encorafenib plus binimetinib were 23% and 35% overall and 31% and 45% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. In comparison, the 5-year PFS and OS rates with vemurafenib were 10% and 21% overall and 12% and 28% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. The median duration of response with encorafenib plus binimetinib was 18.6 months, with disease control achieved in 92.2% of patients. In comparison, the median duration of response with vemurafenib was 12.3 months, with disease control achieved in 81.2% of patients. Long-term follow-up showed no new safety concerns, and results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at COLUMBUS dashboard. CONCLUSION: In this 5-year update of part 1 of the COLUMBUS trial, encorafenib plus binimetinib treatment demonstrated continued long-term benefits and a consistent safety profile in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma.

A Retrospective Analysis of Dabrafenib and/or Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib Combination in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma to Characterize Patients with Long-Term Benefit in the Individual Patient Program (DESCRIBE III).

The dabrafenib plus trametinib (dab + tram) combination has demonstrated durable long-term efficacy in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. However, real-world data characterizing patients with long-term benefit are limited. DESCRIBE III was a global, observational, retrospective, chart review study in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma treated with dab monotherapy and/or dab + tram combination therapy as part of the Named Patient Program or Individual Patient Program. Overall, 509 patients were enrolled. Patients were categorized into three groups based on their observed treatment duration: long-term (on therapy ≥12 months), intermediate (on therapy ≥6 months and <12 months), and short-term (on therapy <6 months) duration of benefit. More patients in the short-term duration of benefit group had baseline characteristics associated with poor prognosis compared with the other two groups. Median lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (368 U/L) at baseline were also higher in the short-term duration of benefit group. No new safety signals were identified. DESCRIBE III identified baseline characteristics associated with long-term benefit of dab + tram. Lower LDH level and <3 metastatic sites at baseline were associated with a longer duration of benefit, confirming that the findings from COMBI-d and COMBI-v are relevant to patients treated in a real-world setting.

Quality of life in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving the combination encorafenib plus binimetinib: Results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase III study (COLUMBUS).

BACKGROUND: In COLUMBUS, treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma showed improved progression-free and overall survival with favourable tolerability compared to vemurafenib treatment. Here, results on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are presented. METHODS: COLUMBUS was a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase III study in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. In PART-I, 577 patients were randomised (1:1:1) to encorafenib plus binimetinib, encorafenib or vemurafenib. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival. As a secondary objective, HRQoL was assessed by the EQ-5D, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-M questionnaires. Furthermore, time to definitive 10% deterioration was estimated with a Kaplan-Meier analysis and differences in mean scores between groups were calculated with a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Hospitalisation rate and the impact of hospitalisation on HRQoL were also assessed. RESULTS: Patients receiving the combination treatment showed improvement of their FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores, compared to those receiving vemurafenib (post-baseline score differences: 3.03 [p < 0.0001] for FACT M and 5.28 [p = 0.0042] for EORTC QLQ-C30), indicative of a meaningful change in patient's status. Furthermore, a delay in the deterioration of QoL was observed in non-hospitalised patients compared to hospitalised patients (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.16 [0.80; 1.68] for EORTC QLQ-C30 and 1.27 [0.81; 1.99] for FACT-M) and a risk reduction of 10% deterioration, favoured the combination in both groups. CONCLUSION: The improved efficacy of encorafenib plus binimetinib compared to vemurafenib, translates into a positive impact on the perceived health status as assessed by the HRQoL questionnaires. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453 and EudraCT number 2013-001176-38.

Update on tolerability and overall survival in COLUMBUS: landmark analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib vs vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations are established treatments for BRAF V600-mutant melanoma based on demonstrated benefits on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Here, we report an updated analysis of the COLUMBUS (COmbined LGX818 [encorafenib] Used with MEK162 [binimetinib] in BRAF mutant Unresectable Skin cancer) trial with long-term follow-up. METHODS: In part 1 of the COLUMBUS trial, 577 patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, untreated or progressed after first-line immunotherapy, were randomised 1:1:1 to 450 mg of encorafenib QD + 45 mg of binimetinib BID (COMBO450) vs 960 mg of vemurafenib BID (VEM) or 300 mg of encorafenib ENCO QD (ENCO300). An updated analysis was conducted that included PFS, OS, objective response rate, safety and tolerability and analyses of results by prognostic subgroups. RESULTS: At data cutoff, there were 116, 113 and 138 deaths in the COMBO450, ENCO300 and VEM treatment arms, respectively. The median OS was 33.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.4-39.2) for COMBO450, 23.5 months (95% CI, 19.6-33.6) for ENCO300 and 16.9 months (95% CI, 14.0-24.5) for VEM. Compared with VEM, COMBO450 decreased the risk of death by 39% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). The updated median PFS for COMBO450 was 14.9 months (95% CI, 11.0-20.2), ENCO300 was 9.6 months (95% CI, 7.4-14.8) and VEM was 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.9). PFS was longer for COMBO450 vs VEM (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67). Landmark OS and PFS results show consistent results for each year analysed. Subgroups all favoured COMBO450 vs VEM. CONCLUSIONS: Updated PFS and OS results for COMBO450 from the COLUMBUS trial demonstrate a long-term benefit in patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutated melanoma.

Serum proteomic analysis of melanoma patients with immunohistochemical profiling of primary melanomas and cultured cells: Pilot study.

The steadily increasing incidence of malignant melanoma (MM) and its aggressive behaviour makes this tumour an attractive cancer research topic. The tumour microenvironment is being increasingly recognised as a key factor in cancer biology, with an impact on proliferation, invasion, angiogenesis and metastatic spread, as well as acquired therapy resistance. Multiple bioactive molecules playing cooperative roles promote the chronic inflammatory milieu in tumours, making inflammation a hallmark of cancer. This specific inflammatory setting is evident in the affected tissue. However, certain mediators can leak into the systemic circulation and affect the whole organism. The present study analysed the complex inflammatory response in the sera of patients with MM of various stages. Multiplexed proteomic analysis (Luminex Corporation) of 31 serum proteins was employed. These targets were observed in immunohistochemical profiles of primary tumours from the same patients. Furthermore, these proteins were analysed in MM cell lines and the principal cell population of the melanoma microenvironment, cancer­associated fibroblasts. Growth factors such as hepatocyte growth factor, granulocyte­colony stimulating factor and vascular endothelial growth factor, chemokines RANTES and interleukin (IL)­8, and cytokines IL­6, interferon­α and IL­1 receptor antagonist significantly differed in these patients compared with the healthy controls. Taken together, the results presented here depict the inflammatory landscape that is altered in melanoma patients, and highlight potentially relevant targets for therapy improvement.

An open-label, multicentre safety study of vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma: final analysis and a validated prognostic scoring system.

BACKGROUND: The oncogenic BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib improves outcomes for patients with advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Vemurafenib is now approved for use in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre study, patients with previously treated or untreated melanoma and the BRAFV600 mutation received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was safety. In a post hoc analysis, overall survival (OS) was analysed according to a prognostic scoring system developed using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, existence of brain metastases and baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase level. The index was validated using data from patients treated with vemurafenib or dacarbazine in three clinical trials and data from patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in two studies. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01307397). RESULTS: Between March 2011 and January 2013, 3224 patients were enrolled, and 3219 patients received ≥1 dose of vemurafenib (safety population); median follow-up time was 33.4 months. Vemurafenib's long-term benefits were confirmed, and no new safety signals identified. The prognostic index showed between-group differences in OS, with tight, non-overlapping confidence intervals. Validation in a pooled group of 666 vemurafenib-treated clinical trial patients revealed a similar pattern; the pattern was similar in 280 patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. CONCLUSIONS: Final results from the vemurafenib safety study confirm vemurafenib's tolerability in BRAFV600 mutation-positive patients and resemble those seen in real-world clinical practice. This index may be useful in patients on combination therapy and as a basis for further work.

Adverse events associated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in the COLUMBUS study: incidence, course and management.

BACKGROUND: Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated. RESULTS: The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event. CONCLUSION: Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38).

Microenvironment­driven resistance to B­Raf inhibition in a melanoma patient is accompanied by broad changes of gene methylation and expression in distal fibroblasts.

The incidence of malignant melanoma is rapidly increasing and current medicine is offering only limited options for treatment of the advanced disease. For B­Raf mutated melanomas, treatment with mutation­specific drug inhibitors may be used. Unfortunately, tumors frequently acquire resistance to the treatment. Tumor microenvironment, namely cancer­associated fibroblasts, largely influence this acquired resistance. In the present study, fibroblasts were isolated from a patient suffering from acrolentiginous melanoma (Breslow, 4.0 mm; Clark, IV; B­Raf V600E mutated). The present study focused on the expression of structural and functional markers of fibroblast activation in melanoma­associated fibroblasts (MAFs; isolated prior to therapy initiation) as well as in autologous control fibroblasts (ACFs) of the same patient isolated during B­Raf inhibitor therapy, yet before clinical progression of the disease. Analysis of gene transcription was also performed, as well as DNA methylation status analysis at the genomic scale of both isolates. MAFs were positive for smooth muscle actin (SMA), which is a marker of myofibroblasts and the hallmark of cancer stoma. Surprisingly, ACF isolated from the distant uninvolved skin of the same patient also exhibited strong SMA expression. A similar phenotype was also observed in control dermal fibroblasts (CDFs; from different donors) exclusively following stimulation by transforming growth factor (TGF)­ß1. Immunohistochemistry confirmed that melanoma cells potently produce TGF­ß1. Significant differences were also identified in gene transcription and in DNA methylation status at the genomic scale. Upregulation of SMA was observed in ACF cells at the protein and transcriptional levels. The present results support recent experimental findings that tumor microenvironment is driving resistance to B­Raf inhibition in patients with melanoma. Such an activated microenvironment may be viable for the growth of circulating melanoma cells.

Open-label, multicentre safety study of vemurafenib in 3219 patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: 2-year follow-up data and long-term responders' analysis.

BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib is an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with metastatic melanoma harbouring BRAFV600 mutations. We assessed the safety of vemurafenib in a large population of patients with few alternative treatment options; we report updated 2-year safety. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre study of vemurafenib (960 mg bid) in patients with previously treated or untreated BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (cobas® 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test). The primary end-point was safety; efficacy end-points were secondary. An exploratory analysis was performed to assess safety outcomes in patients with long duration of response (DOR) (≥12 or ≥24 months). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 32.2 months (95% CI, 31.1-33.2 months), 3079/3219 patients (96%) had discontinued treatment. Adverse events (AEs) were largely consistent with previous reports; the most common all-grade treatment-related AEs were arthralgia (37%), alopecia (25%) and hyperkeratosis (23%); the most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs were squamous cell carcinoma of the skin (8%) and keratoacanthoma (8%). In the exploratory analysis, patients with DOR ≥12 months (n = 287) or ≥24 months (n = 133) were more likely to experience grade 3/4 AEs than the overall population. No new specific safety signals were observed with longer vemurafenib exposure. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years' follow-up, safety was maintained in this large group of patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma who are more representative of routine clinical practice than typical clinical trial populations. These data suggest that long-term vemurafenib treatment is effective and tolerable without the development of new safety signals.