Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases. METHODS: TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, brain metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (11 [18%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients who received triplet therapy in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

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).

Significant improvement in melanoma survival over the last decade: A Hungarian nationwide study between 2011 and 2019.

BACKGROUND: Recent real-world studies have reported significant improvements in the survival of malignant melanoma in the past few years, mainly as a result of modern therapies. However, long-term survival data from Central Eastern European countries such as Hungary are currently lacking. METHODS: This nationwide, retrospective study examined melanoma survival in Hungary between 2011-2019 using the databases of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) and Central Statistical Office (CSO) of Hungary. Crude overall survival and age-standardized 5-year net survival as well as the association between age, sex and survival were calculated. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2019, 22,948 newly diagnosed malignant melanoma cases were recorded in the NHIF database (47.89% male, mean age: 60.75 years (SD: ±16.39)). Five-year overall survival was 75.40% (women: 80.78%; men: 69.52%). Patients diagnosed between 2017-2019 had a 20% lower risk of mortality compared to patients diagnosed between 2011-2012 (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89; p < 0.0001). Age-standardized 5-year net survival rates in 2011-2014 and 2015-2019 were 90.6% and 95.8%, respectively (women: 93.1% and 98.4%, men: 87.8% and 92.7%, respectively). The highest age-standardized 5-year net survival rates were found in the 0-39 age cohort (94.6% in the 2015-2019 period). CONCLUSION: Hungary has similar melanoma survival rates to Western European countries. Based on net survival, the risk of dying of melanoma within 5 years was cut by more than half (55%) during the study period, which coincides with the successful implementation of awareness campaigns and the wide availability of modern therapies.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases. METHODS: TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, CNS metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (ten [17%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. One death in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort (limbic encephalitis) was considered to be related to atezolizumab treatment. INTERPRETATION: Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib provided promising intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

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.

Health-related quality of life impact of cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in patients with advanced or metastatic BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In the coBRIM study, cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (C+V) significantly improved survival outcomes vs placebo and vemurafenib (P+V) in patients with advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutated melanoma. An analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) from coBRIM is reported. METHODS: Patients completing the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline and ⩾1 time point thereafter constituted the analysis population. Change from baseline ⩾10 points was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Mean baseline scores for all QLQ-C30 domains were similar between arms. Most on-treatment scores for QLQ-C30 domains were also comparable between arms. A transient deterioration in role function in cycle 1 day 15 (C1D15; -14.7 points) in the P+V arm and improvement in insomnia in the C+V arm at C2D15 (-12.4 points) was observed. Among patients who experienced a ⩾10-point change from baseline (responders), between-group differences were greatest for insomnia (16%), social functioning (10%), fatigue (9%) and pain (7%), all favouring C+V. Diarrhoea, photosensitivity reaction, pyrexia, and rash did not meaningfully affect global health status (GHS). Serous retinopathy was associated with a transient decrease in GHS at C1D15 assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutated melanoma, treatment with C+V maintained HRQOL compared with P+V, with superior efficacy.

Tumor-infiltrating immune cells as potential biomarkers predicting response to treatment and survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving ipilimumab therapy.

Monoclonal antibodies targeting immune checkpoints are gaining ground in the treatment of melanoma and other cancers, and considerable effort is made to identify biomarkers predicting the efficacy of these therapies. Our retrospective study was performed on surgical tissue samples (52 lymph nodes and 34 cutaneous/subcutaneous metastases) from 30 patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab. Using a panel of 11 antibodies against different immune cell types, intratumoral immune cell densities were determined and evaluated in relation to response to ipilimumab treatment and disease outcome. For most markers studied, median immune cell densities were at least two times higher in lymph node metastases compared to skin/subcutaneous ones; therefore, the prognostic and predictive associations of immune cell infiltration were evaluated separately in the two groups of metastases as well as in all samples as a whole. Higher prevalence of several immune cell types was seen in lymph node metastases of the responders compared to non-responders, particularly FOXP3+ cells and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In subcutaneous or cutaneous metastases, on the other hand, significant difference could be observed only in the case of CD16 and CD68. Associations of labeled cell densities with survival were also found for most cell types studied in nodal metastases, and for CD16+ and CD68+ cells in skin/s.c. metastatic cases. Our results corroborate the previous findings suggesting an association between an immunologically active tumor microenvironment and response to ipilimumab treatment, and propose new potential biomarkers for predicting treatment efficacy and disease outcome.

[Treatment of metastatic progression following the synchronous occurrence of cutaneous and ocular primary melanomas]. / Metasztatikus progresszió kezelése primer cutan és ocularis melanoma szinkrón elofordulását követoen.

The incidence rates of cutaneous melanoma in non-Hispanic whites show an increasing tendency with age. While uveal melanoma in general is a rare disease, representing only 4% of all melanomas with an incidence rate of 0.6 per 100 000, it is still the most frequent malignancy of the eye. Synchronous occurrence of ocular and cutaneous melanoma is an exceptional rarity, due to the distinct genetic background of the diseases. We report the case of a 80-year-old man who underwent total excision of a cutaneous melanoma in 2008. In 2013, he was diagnosed with uveal melanoma as part of a routine work-up for reduced vision. The uveal melanoma was treated by brachytherapy. In 2015, liver metastases were suspected by routine ultrasonography. Core biopsy was carried out, and the histology confirmed melanoma metastases. The molecular analysis of the cutaneous lesion showed gain of function mutation of the BRAF V600 K gene, while we found a wild-type BRAF gene in the metastatic lesion. Based on the recommendation of the oncoteam, hepatic intra-arterial Epirubicin-Platidiam therapy was introduced. He received 11 doses of intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC), in 21 cycles. IAC was well tolerated without any catheter-related complications or toxicities. Partial regression of the hepatic metastases were documented in February 2016. After completing the eleventh cycle of intrahepatic chemotherapy, the disease remained in complete remission for over a year. The parallel occurrence of cutaneous and ocular melanoma is rare, however, the metastatic progression in such cases make the selection of optimal medical therapy challenging. The distinct genetic background of two melanoma types may help the identification of the source of the metastatic lesions, in order to guide the treatment decisions. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(16): 642-647.

Challenging tumour immunological techniques that help to track cancer stem cells in malignant melanomas and other solid tumours.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The arsenal of questions and answers about the minor cancer initiating cancer stem cell (CSC) population put responsible for cancer invasiveness and metastases, has left with an unsolved puzzle. Specific aims of a complex project were partly focused on revealing new biomarkers of cancer. We designed and set up novel techniques to facilitate the detection of cancerous cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a novel approach, we investigated B cells infiltrating breast carcinomas and melanomas (TIL-B) in terms of their tumour antigen binding potential. By developing the TIL-B phage display technology we provide here a new technology for the specific detection of highly tumour-associated antigens. Single chain Fv (scFv) antibody fragment phage ELISA, immunofluorescence (IF) FACS analysis, chamber slide technique with IF confocal laser microscopy and immunohistochemistry (IHC) in paraffin-embedded tissue sections were set up and standardized. RESULTS: We showed strong tumour-associated disialylated glycosphingolipid expression levels on various cancer cells using scFv antibody fragments, generated previously by uniquely invasive breast carcinoma TIL-B phage display library technology. CONCLUSIONS: We report herein a novel strategy to obtain antibody fragments of human origin that recognise tumour-associated ganglioside antigens. Our investigations have the power to detect privileged molecules in cancer progression, invasiveness, and metastases. The technical achievements of this study are being harnessed for early diagnostics and effective cancer therapeutics.

Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma. METHODS: NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance status, and previous immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one study drug dose and one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01763164 and with EudraCT, number 2012-003593-51. FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4-4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8-3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5-1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. INTERPRETATION: Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. FUNDING: Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit-risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515189. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6-42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9-29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6-17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9-13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).

[Clinical studies and accepted therapies of advanced melanoma]. / Klinikai vizsgálatok eredményei és törzskönyvezett gyógyszerek az elõrehaladott melanoma immunterápiájában.

The objective of the work is presentation of the available therapeutic results of the clinical trials with anti CTLA-4 and anti PD-1 treatment, which are operating on the immune checkpoints registered in advanced melanoma, and the results of T-VEC vaccination (NCT00094653, NCT00324155, KEYNOTE-001, -002, -006, CheckMate-066, -037, -067, NCT00769704). With ipilimumab therapy, long-term survival can be achieved in the case of 20% of patients, with low (10%) therapeutic response, and grade 3-4 treatment related, predominantly autoimmune adverse events occurring in 10-15% of patients. Anti-PD-1 therapy proved more effective compared to ipilimumab, resulting in 21-40% therapeutic response, with 60-74% one-year survival rate and significantly less severe and frequent side effects. Progression-free survival achieved with ipilimumab/nivolumab combination was 11.5 months with grade 3-4 side effects occurring in 55% of patients. T-VEC therapy resulted in 26.4% objective response rate without a significant survival advantage. In the possession of the new immunotherapeutic possibilities, knowledge of the results of clinical studies is essential for the optimal complex therapy of melanoma.

[Psychological aspects of immunotherapies in the treatment of malignant melanoma]. / Immunterápiák pszichológiai vonatkozásai a melanoma komplex és multidiszciplináris kezelésében.

Psychological problems may arise in connection with oncomedical treatments in three ways: 1. acute and/or 2. chronic ways, as well as 3. co-morbid psychiatric diseases that already exist must also be taken into account. Immunotherapies have the most common and also clinically relevant psychological side effects. Fatigue, anhedonia, social isolation, psychomotor slowness is reported during treatment. Anti-CTLA-4 antibody (ipilimumab) immunotherapy can present one of the most modern opportunities for adequate treatment for patients having distant metastasis or unresectable tumour. In relation to immunotherapies, acute psychological side effects (acute stress) emerging during treatments develop in a way that can mostly be linked to environmental factors, e.g. notification of diagnosis, hospitalisation, progression, deterioration in quality of life, imminent dates of control. Crisis is a temporary and threatening condition that endangers psychological balance. In such conditions, enhanced psychological vulnerability must be taken into account and doctors play a key role in the rapid recognition of the condition. Chronic psychological problems, which may arise from the depressogenic effect of the applied treatment or originated from a pre-melanoma psychiatric condition, may exceed the diagnostic and psychotherapeutic competences of a clinical psychologist. Even in case of a well-defined depressogenic biological mechanism such as the activation of the pro-inflammatory cytokine pathway, positive environmental effects can reduce symptoms and thus increase compliance. Side effects can be treated successfully using psychotherapeutic methods and/or psychiatric medicines. The application of routinely used complex psychosocial screening packages can provide the easiest method to identify worsening psychological condition during immunotherapy and give rapid feedback to the oncologist and the patient. Team work is of particular importance in a situation like this as it requires complex, interdisciplinary and high-level professional collaboration. Multidisciplinarity is the basic framework for modern tumour therapy where, under the guidance of oncologists, the work of specialist nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, dieticians and last but not least psychiatrists/psychologists are indispensable and play a significant role.

[Genetic information from tumor-infiltrating B lymphocytes as a driver tool ("GPS") for anti-tumor T cell CARs]. / A tumorban felhalmozódó B-limfociták genetikai információja, mint az immun T-sejt vezette tumorellenes "autó" (CAR, kiméra antigénreceptor) célba irányító "GPS"-e.

The rapidly growing field of gene therapy techniques to modify T cells with chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) for cancer care solutions, reached considerable achievements. However, there is an urgent need of reliable, well tolerable tumor-associated antigen specific antibodies. Tumor-infiltrating B (TIL-B) cell originated single chain Fv (scFv) gene regions could be selected with tumor specificity. DNA sequences of these antibody variable regions were subjects to get engineered into new CAR constructs. Our novel strategy harnesses tumor-infiltrating B cells' unique capacity to reveal highly tumor-associated disialylated glycosphingolipids (GD3 gangliosides). We used these human antibody fragments for generating GD3 ganglioside specific CAR gene constructs for potential usage in solid tumors.

[Dabrafenib (Tafinlar) therapy - effect and side effects]. / Dabrafenib (Tafinlar) terápia - hatás és mellékhatás.

Despite the continuously increasing incidence of melanoma, over decades the therapy has barely changed. However, since 2011 the "still water" moves, now with multiple medications the patient survival can be improved. Dabrafenib is the second registered BRAF kinase inhibitor. In clinical trials it resulted in 5-9 month progression-free survival (PFS). It proved to be effective in BRAF V600K mutation and also in the case of cerebral metastases. Side effects are well tolerated. The most frequent side effects are fever, skin symptoms, benign skin tumors, keratoacanthoma/squamous cell carcinoma, hyperkeratosis, weakness and joint pain.

[Advancements in the diagnosis of melanoma]. / A melanóma diagnosztikájának fejlodése.

The continuously increasing incidence of melanoma and new developments in the therapy of metastatic disease require accurate diagnosis in all stages of melanoma. This study overviews the development of diagnostics tools in recent years/decades that are used in everyday medical practice such as optical diagnostic tools utilized for diagnosing primary tumors, sentinel lymph node biopsy, developments in molecular diagnostics, as well as the role of PET/CT in imaging techniques.

[Metastatic malignant melanoma of the oesophagus: case report]. / Melanoma malignum nyelocso-metastasisának operált esete.

We report a case of metastatic malignant melanoma in the oesophagus. 13 years after the wide excision of primary skin melanoma, we found a polypoid tumor in the upper third of the oesophagus. Biopsy result was melanoma malignum. After negative staging we performed transhiatal oesophagectomy with gastric conduit and cervical anastomosis. Metastatic nature of the oesophageal tumor was proven by histology. After uneventful postoperative course, the patient received adjuvant dacarbazine treatment. The patient was is in good condition, and disease free on the 18 month follow-up.

Selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment for BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma: a phase 2 double-blind randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic melanoma, 50% of whose tumours harbour a BRAF mutation, have a poor prognosis. Selumetinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and in preclinical models when combined with chemotherapy. This study was designed to look for a signal of improved efficacy by comparing the combination of selumetinib and dacarbazine with dacarbazine alone. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study investigated selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned by central interactive voice response system (1:1 ratio, block size four) to take either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21-day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle). Patients, investigators, and the study team were masked to the treatment assigned. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00936221. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2009, and April 8, 2010, 91 patients were randomly assigned to receive dacarbazine in combination with selumetinib (n=45) or placebo (n=46). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (median 13·9 months, 80% CI 10·2-15·6, in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group and 10·5 months, 9·6-14·7, in the placebo plus dacarbazine group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 80% CI 0·67-1·28, one-sided p=0·39). However, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group versus the placebo plus dacarbazine group (HR 0·63, 80% CI 0·47-0·84, one-sided p=0·021), with a median of 5·6 months (80% CI 4·9-5·9) versus 3·0 months (2·8-4·6), respectively. The most frequent adverse events included nausea (28 [64%] of 44 patients on selumetinib vs 25 [56%] of 45 on placebo), acneiform dermatitis (23 [52%] vs one [2%]), diarrhoea (21 [48%] vs 13 [29%]), vomiting (21 [48%] vs 15 [33%]), and peripheral oedema (19 [43%] vs three [7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (six [14%] patients in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group vs four [9%] in the placebo plus dacarbazine group). INTERPRETATION: Selumetinib plus dacarbazine showed clinical activity in patients with BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma, reflected by a significant benefit in progression-free survival compared with placebo plus dacarbazine group, although no significant change in overall survival was noted. The tolerability of this combination was generally consistent with monotherapy safety profiles. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.