Antitumor activity of ipilimumab or BRAF ± MEK inhibition after pembrolizumab treatment in patients with advanced melanoma: analysis from KEYNOTE-006.

BACKGROUND: Antitumor activity of ipilimumab or BRAF ± MEK inhibitors (BRAFi ± MEKi) following pembrolizumab administration in melanoma is poorly characterized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase III KEYNOTE-006 study, patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma received pembrolizumab (10 mg/kg) once every 2 or 3 weeks (Q3W) or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) Q3W. The current post hoc analysis evaluates outcomes with ipilimumab or BRAFi ± MEKi as first subsequent systemic therapy after pembrolizumab administration and includes patients who completed or discontinued pembrolizumab after one or more dose. Pembrolizumab arms were pooled. RESULTS: At data cut-off (4 December 2017), median follow-up was 46.9 months. Of 555 pembrolizumab-treated patients, first subsequent therapy was ipilimumab for 103 (18.6%) and BRAFi ± MEKi for 59 (10.6%) [33 received BRAFi + MEKi, 26 BRAFi alone; 37 (62.7%) were BRAFi ± MEKi naïve]. In the subsequent ipilimumab group, ORR with previous pembrolizumab was 17.5% [1 complete response (CR); 17 partial response (PR)]; 79.6% had discontinued pembrolizumab due to progressive disease (PD); median overall survival (OS) was 21.5 months. ORR with subsequent ipilimumab was 15.5%; 11/16 responses (8 CRs; 3 PRs) were ongoing. ORR with subsequent ipilimumab was 9.7% for patients with PD as best response to pembrolizumab. Median OS from ipilimumab initiation was 9.8 months. In the subsequent BRAFi ± MEKi group, ORR with previous pembrolizumab was 13.5% (8 PR); 76.3% had discontinued pembrolizumab due to PD; median OS was 17.9 months. ORR with subsequent BRAFi ± MEKi was 30.5%, 7/18 responses (4 CR, 3 PR) were ongoing. Median OS from BRAFi ± MEKi initiation was 12.9 months. ORR for BRAFi ± MEKi-naïve patients who received subsequent BRAFi ± MEKi was 43.2%; 6/16 were ongoing (3 CR, 3 PR). CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab and BRAFi ± MEKi have antitumor activity as first subsequent therapy after pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma.

The paradox-breaking panRAF plus SRC family kinase inhibitor, CCT3833, is effective in mutant KRAS-driven cancers.

BACKGROUND: KRAS is mutated in ∼90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, ∼35% of colorectal cancers and ∼20% of non-small-cell lung cancers. There has been recent progress in targeting G12CKRAS specifically, but therapeutic options for other mutant forms of KRAS are limited, largely because the complexity of downstream signaling and feedback mechanisms mean that targeting individual pathway components is ineffective. DESIGN: The protein kinases RAF and SRC are validated therapeutic targets in KRAS-mutant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, colorectal cancers and non-small-cell lung cancers and we show that both must be inhibited to block growth of these cancers. We describe CCT3833, a new drug that inhibits both RAF and SRC, which may be effective in KRAS-mutant cancers. RESULTS: We show that CCT3833 inhibits RAF and SRC in KRAS-mutant tumors in vitro and in vivo, and that it inhibits tumor growth at well-tolerated doses in mice. CCT3833 has been evaluated in a phase I clinical trial (NCT02437227) and we report here that it significantly prolongs progression-free survival of a patient with a G12VKRAS spindle cell sarcoma who did not respond to a multikinase inhibitor and therefore had limited treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: New drug CCT3833 elicits significant preclinical therapeutic efficacy in KRAS-mutant colorectal, lung and pancreatic tumor xenografts, demonstrating a treatment option for several areas of unmet clinical need. Based on these preclinical data and the phase I clinical unconfirmed response in a patient with KRAS-mutant spindle cell sarcoma, CCT3833 requires further evaluation in patients with other KRAS-mutant cancers.

Delayed immune-related adverse events with anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) typically occur within 4 months of starting anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)-based therapy [anti-PD-1 ± anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4)], but delayed irAEs (onset >12 months after commencement) can also occur. This study describes the incidence, nature and management of delayed irAEs in patients receiving anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with delayed irAEs from 20 centres were studied. The incidence of delayed irAEs was estimated as a proportion of melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy and surviving >1 year. Onset, clinical features, management and outcomes of irAEs were examined. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients developed a total of 140 delayed irAEs (20 after initial combination with anti-CTLA4), with an estimated incidence of 5.3% (95% confidence interval 4.0-6.9, 53/999 patients at sites with available data). The median onset of delayed irAE was 16 months (range 12-53 months). Eighty-seven patients (74%) were on anti-PD-1 at irAE onset, 15 patients (12%) were <3 months from the last dose and 16 patients (14%) were >3 months from the last dose of anti-PD-1. The most common delayed irAEs were colitis, rash and pneumonitis; 55 of all irAEs (39%) were ≥grade 3. Steroids were required in 80 patients (68%), as well as an additional immunosuppressive agent in 27 patients (23%). There were two irAE-related deaths: encephalitis with onset during anti-PD-1 and a multiple-organ irAE with onset 11 months after ceasing anti-PD-1. Early irAEs (<12 months) had also occurred in 69 patients (58%), affecting a different organ from the delayed irAE in 59 patients (86%). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed irAEs occur in a small but relevant subset of patients. Delayed irAEs are often different from previous irAEs, may be high grade and can lead to death. They mostly occur in patients still receiving anti-PD-1. The risk of delayed irAE should be considered when deciding the duration of treatment in responding patients. However, patients who stop treatment may also rarely develop delayed irAE.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of locoregional melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment of brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups in order to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of locoregional melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

ESMO consensus conference recommendations on the management of metastatic melanoma: under the auspices of the ESMO Guidelines Committee.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a consensus conference on melanoma on 5-7 September 2019 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of melanoma. The aim of the conference was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were (i) the management of locoregional disease; (ii) targeted versus immunotherapies in the adjuvant setting; (iii) targeted versus immunotherapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma; (iv) when to stop immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting; and (v) systemic versus local treatment for brain metastases. The expert panel was divided into five working groups to each address questions relating to one of the five topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the results relating to the management of metastatic melanoma, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

Prediction and monitoring of relapse in stage III melanoma using circulating tumor DNA.

BACKGROUND: The advent of effective adjuvant therapies for patients with resected melanoma has highlighted the need to stratify patients based on risk of relapse given the cost and toxicities associated with treatment. Here we assessed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to predict and monitor relapse in resected stage III melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Somatic mutations were identified in 99/133 (74%) patients through tumor tissue sequencing. Personalized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays were used to detect known mutations in 315 prospectively collected plasma samples from mutation-positive patients. External validation was performed in a prospective independent cohort (n = 29). RESULTS: ctDNA was detected in 37 of 99 (37%) individuals. In 81 patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy, 90% of patients with ctDNA detected at baseline and 100% of patients with ctDNA detected at the postoperative timepoint relapsed at a median follow up of 20 months. ctDNA detection predicted patients at high risk of relapse at baseline [relapse-free survival (RFS) hazard ratio (HR) 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-5.6; P = 0.002] and postoperatively (HR 10; 95% CI 4.3-24; P < 0.001). ctDNA detection at baseline [HR 2.9; 95% CI 1.3-5.7; P = 0.003 and postoperatively (HR 11; 95% CI 4.3-27; P < 0.001] was also associated with inferior distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). These findings were validated in the independent cohort. ctDNA detection remained an independent predictor of RFS and DMFS in multivariate analyses after adjustment for disease stage and BRAF mutation status. CONCLUSION: Baseline and postoperative ctDNA detection in two independent prospective cohorts identified stage III melanoma patients at highest risk of relapse and has potential to inform adjuvant therapy decisions.

Circulating tumor DNA predicts survival in patients with resected high-risk stage II/III melanoma.

Background: Patients with high-risk stage II/III resected melanoma commonly develop distant metastases. At present, we cannot differentiate between patients who will recur or those who are cured by surgery. We investigated if circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can predict relapse and survival in patients with resected melanoma. Patients and methods: We carried out droplet digital polymerase chain reaction to detect BRAF and NRAS mutations in plasma taken after surgery from 161 stage II/III high-risk melanoma patients enrolled in the AVAST-M adjuvant trial. Results: Mutant BRAF or NRAS ctDNA was detected (≥1 copy of mutant ctDNA) in 15/132 (11%) BRAF mutant patient samples and 4/29 (14%) NRAS mutant patient samples. Patients with detectable ctDNA had a decreased disease-free interval [DFI; hazard ratio (HR) 3.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.79-5.47; P < 0.0001] and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI; HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.80-5.79; P < 0.0001) versus those with undetectable ctDNA. Detectable ctDNA remained a significant predictor after adjustment for performance status and disease stage (DFI: HR 3.26, 95% CI 1.83-5.83, P < 0.0001; DMFI: HR 3.45, 95% CI 1.88-6.34, P < 0.0001). Five-year overall survival rate for patients with detectable ctDNA was 33% (95% CI 14%-55%) versus 65% (95% CI 56%-72%) for those with undetectable ctDNA. Overall survival was significantly worse for patients with detectable ctDNA (HR 2.63; 95% CI 1.40-4.96); P = 0.003) and remained significant after adjustment for performance status (HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.32-4.74, P = 0.005). Conclusion: ctDNA predicts for relapse and survival in high-risk resected melanoma and could aid selection of patients for adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial number: ISRCTN 81261306.

Adjuvant bevacizumab for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: survival analysis of the AVAST-M trial.

Background: Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanised monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor shown to improve survival in advanced solid cancers. We evaluated the role of adjuvant bevacizumab in melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence. Patients and methods: Patients with resected AJCC stage IIB, IIC and III cutaneous melanoma were randomised to receive either adjuvant bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v. 3 weekly for 1 year) or standard observation. The primary end point was detection of an 8% difference in 5-year overall survival (OS) rate; secondary end points included disease-free interval (DFI) and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI). Tumour and blood were analysed for prognostic and predictive markers. Results: Patients (n=1343) recruited between 2007 and 2012 were predominantly stage III (73%), with median age 56 years (range 18-88 years). With 6.4-year median follow-up, 515 (38%) patients had died [254 (38%) bevacizumab; 261 (39%) observation]; 707 (53%) patients had disease recurrence [336 (50%) bevacizumab, 371 (55%) observation]. OS at 5 years was 64% for both groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.16, P = 0.78). At 5 years, 51% were disease free on bevacizumab versus 45% on observation (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = 0.03), 58% were distant metastasis free on bevacizumab versus 54% on observation (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P = 0.25). Forty four percent of 682 melanomas assessed had a BRAFV600 mutation. In the observation arm, BRAF mutant patients had a trend towards poorer OS compared with BRAF wild-type patients (P = 0.06). BRAF mutation positivity trended towards better OS with bevacizumab (P = 0.21). Conclusions: Adjuvant bevacizumab after resection of high-risk melanoma improves DFI, but not OS. BRAF mutation status may predict for poorer OS untreated and potential benefit from bevacizumab. Clinical Trial Information: ISRCTN 81261306; EudraCT Number: 2006-005505-64.

Unmet supportive care needs, health status and minimum costs in survivors of malignant melanoma.

We explored the relationship between unmet care needs, health status, health utility and costs in people treated for melanoma via a cross-sectional follow-up survey (N = 455) 3 months to 5 years after complete resection of stage I-III cutaneous malignant melanoma. 51% (n = 232) had unmet care needs. This group had higher mean resource use, estimated conservatively (£28 vs. £10 per person) and worse overall health. Mean health-related utility index (AQoL6D) was 0.763 (95% CI 0.74; 0.79) in those with self-reported unmet need vs. 0.903 (0.89; 0.92) in those with no unmet need. Melanoma survivors with unmet need had worse outcomes in terms of anxiety (HADS 6.86 vs. 4.29), depression (HADS 4.29 vs. 2.01), overall quality of life (QoL: FACT-M 84.2 vs. 96.5). Higher resource use was associated with younger age (rs  = -.29, p < .001), older school-leaving age (rs  = .21, p < .001), reduced health utility (rs  = -.14, p = .005), higher anxiety (rs  = .22, p < .001), higher depression (rs  = .16, p = .001) and lower QoL (overall rs  = -.24, p < .001; melanoma QoL rs  = -.20, p < .001; surgery QoL rs  = -.19, p < .001). Lower health outcomes indicate increased service use, suggesting that interventions to address unmet need and improve health outcomes may reduce health costs. Integrated clinical and economic evaluations of interventions that target unmet need in melanoma survivors are required.

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

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

Efficacy and toxicity of treatment with the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma after prior anti-PD-1 therapy.

BACKGROUND: Recent phase III clinical trials have established the superiority of the anti-PD-1 antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab over the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. Ipilimumab will be considered for second-line treatment after the failure of anti-PD-1 therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified a cohort of 40 patients with metastatic melanoma who received single-agent anti-PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab and were treated on progression with ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg kg(-1) for a maximum of four doses. RESULTS: Ten percent of patients achieved an objective response to ipilimumab, and an additional 8% experienced prolonged (>6 months) stable disease. Thirty-five percent of patients developed grade 3-5 immune-related toxicity associated with ipilimumab therapy. The most common high-grade immune-related toxicity was diarrhoea. Three patients (7%) developed grade 3-5 pneumonitis leading to death in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab therapy can induce responses in patients who fail the anti-PD-1 therapy with response rates comparable to previous reports. There appears to be an increased frequency of high-grade immune-related adverse events including pneumonitis that warrants close surveillance.

Distinct subclonal tumour responses to therapy revealed by circulating cell-free DNA.

BACKGROUND: The application of precision medicine in oncology requires in-depth characterisation of a patient's tumours and the dynamics of their responses to treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used next-generation sequencing of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to monitor the response of a KIT p.L576P-mutant metastatic vaginal mucosal melanoma to sequential targeted, immuno- and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Despite a KIT mutation, the response to imatinib was mixed. Unfortunately, tumours were not accessible for molecular analysis. To study the mechanism underlying the mixed clinical response, we carried out whole-exome sequencing and targeted longitudinal analysis of cfDNA. This revealed two tumour subclones; one with a KIT mutation that responded to imatinib and a second KIT-wild-type subclone that did not respond to imatinib. Notably, the subclones also responded differently to immunotherapy. However, both subclones responded to carboplatin/paclitaxel, and although the KIT-wild-type subclone progressed after chemotherapy, it responded to subsequent re-administration of paclitaxel. CONCLUSION: We show that cfDNA can reveal tumour evolution and subclonal responses to therapy even when biopsies are not available.

Circulating tumour cells as tumour biomarkers in melanoma: detection methods and clinical relevance.

Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) are cells of solid tumour origin detectable in the peripheral blood. Their occurrence is considered a prerequisite step for establishing distant metastases. Metastatic melanoma was the first malignancy in which CTCs were detected and numerous studies have been published on CTC detection in melanoma at various stages of disease. In spite of this, there is no general consensus as to the clinical utility of CTCs in melanoma, largely due to conflicting results from heterogeneous studies and discrepancies in methods of detection between studies. In this review, we examine the possible clinical significance of CTCs in cutaneous, mucosal and ocular melanoma, focusing on detection methods and prognostic value of CTC detection.

Assessing the impact of diagnosis and the related supportive care needs in patients with cutaneous melanoma.

PURPOSE: Despite the large number of people affected by melanoma, little is known about the specific needs of melanoma patients. Understanding the effects of melanoma diagnosis and the specific supportive care needs of this group of patients is a necessary step towards provision of effective psychosocial care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 15 patients with malignant melanoma of the skin. The sample size, which was purposive, included 8 females and 7 males from 27 to 78 years old. Data were analysed using the NVIVO 8 software and principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four major areas were identified: (a) Emotional effects due to body image, fear of the sun and uncertainty for the future; (b) Effects on Relationships, with some patients in need of more support than others from family and work colleagues; (c) Functional effects due to on-going symptoms such as pain and lymphedema; and (d) Health System and Information Needs, around the clarity, quality and timing of the information received from the health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that we often fail to pick up melanoma patients' health and psychosocial needs and fail to refer them appropriately, rather than the services not being available. Interventions should focus on patient and carer education about melanoma and sun protection, psychosocial support and effective information giving. Patient-reported outcome measures should routinely be collected to identify issues of specific concerns to the patients and directing them to the right services based on their individual needs.

Prevalence and correlates of unmet supportive care needs in patients with resected invasive cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about supportive care needs in patients with cutaneous invasive melanoma is scarce. We examined the unmet needs of melanoma patients treated with surgery and factors associated with these needs to assist health professionals identify areas needing clinical attention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional multisite survey of UK patients ascertained 3 months to 5 years after complete resection of stage I-III cutaneous melanoma. Participants completed the following validated questionnaires: Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34 with melanoma module), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and 51-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma quality-of-life scale. RESULTS: A total of 472 participants were recruited [319 (67%) clinical stage I-II). Mean age was 60 years (standard deviation = 14) and 255 (54%) were female. One hundred and twenty-three (27%) participants reported at least one unmet need (mostly 'low' level). The most frequently reported unmet needs were fears of cancer returning (n = 138, 29%), uncertainty about the future (n = 119, 25%), lack of information about risk of recurrence (n = 112, 24%) and about possible outcomes if melanoma were to spread (n = 91, 20%). One hundred and thirty-eight (29%) participants reported anxiety and 51 (11%) depression at clinical or subclinical levels. Patients with nodal disease had a significantly higher level of unmet supportive care needs (P < 0.001) as did patients with anxiety or depression (P < 0.001). Key correlates of the total SCNS-SF34 score for unmet supportive care needs were younger age (odds ratio, OR = 2.23, P < 0.001) and leaving school early (OR = 4.85, P < 0.001), while better emotional (OR = 0.89, P < 0.001) and social well-being (OR = 0.91, P < 0.001) were linked with fewer unmet needs. Neither patients' sex nor tumour thickness was associated with unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: Around a quarter of melanoma patients may have unmet support needs in the mid to long term after primary treatment. In particular, patients who are younger, less educated, distressed or socially isolated could benefit from more support.

DOC-MEK: a double-blind randomized phase II trial of docetaxel with or without selumetinib in wild-type BRAF advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for wild-type BRAF melanoma patients remain limited. Selumetinib, a MEK 1/2 inhibitor, suppresses pERK levels independent of BRAF and NRAS mutation status, and combination with docetaxel has demonstrated synergy in xenograft models. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of selumetinib plus docetaxel as first-line treatment in patients with wild-type BRAF advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind multicentre phase II trial patients with wild-type BRAF melanoma were randomized (1:1) to docetaxel with selumetinib or placebo. Docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks up to six cycles. Selumetinib 75 mg or placebo was given orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Tumour NRAS mutation status was analysed retrospectively and correlated with treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were randomized to docetaxel plus selumetinib (n = 41) or docetaxel plus placebo (n = 42). The PFS hazard ratio (HR) (selumetinib:placebo) was 0.75 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.14; P = 0.130], with a median PFS of 4.23 months (90% CI 3.63-6.90) for docetaxel plus selumetinib and 3.93 months (90% CI 2.07-4.16) for docetaxel alone. There was no significant difference in overall survival. The objective response rate was 32% with selumetinib versus 14% with placebo (P = 0.059). In a retrospective subset analysis, NRAS mutation status did not affect significantly upon clinical outcomes in either arm. The combination of docetaxel and selumetinib could be administered effectively to patients with metastatic melanoma, although the combination was less well tolerated than docetaxel alone. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of docetaxel with selumetinib showed no significant improvement in PFS compared with docetaxel alone, although more patients showed a response to combination therapy. We found no evidence to support using tumour NRAS mutation as a basis for selecting patients for combined MEK inhibitor and chemotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL: DOC-MEK (EudraCT no: 2009-018153-23).

Treatment patterns, outcomes, and resource utilization of patients with metastatic melanoma in the U.K.: the MELODY study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced melanoma is an aggressive disease with a poor prognosis. Approved therapy is limited in the U.K. and, until recently, no treatment had improved survival over best supportive care. A deeper understanding of current clinical practice will help new agents find a place in future treatment pathways. OBJECTIVES: To document U.K. clinical practice for the treatment of patients with unresectable stage III/IV (advanced) melanoma. METHODS: MELODY (melanoma treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with unresectable stage III/IV disease: a retrospective longitudinal survey) compiled registries of consecutive patients with malignant melanoma (any stage) between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2006 from France, Italy and the U.K. Patients with advanced melanoma and ≥ 2 months of follow-up were eligible for analysis. RESULTS: There were 220 eligible patients identified in the U.K., of whom 117 (53.2%) received systemic therapy outside of clinical trials. Over half of these patients received dacarbazine as first- or second-line therapy. Healthcare-resource utilization was extensive and patients had short survival times: 1- and 2-year survival rates after first-line systemic treatment were 45.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37.1-53.6] and 24.7% (95% CI 17.7-32.3), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic and palliative treatments used to manage advanced melanoma in the U.K. are associated with considerable healthcare resource utilization and poor short-term survival.

Phase I-II study of plitidepsin and dacarbazine as first-line therapy for advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: This phase I-II trial compared plitidepsin 1-h infusion alone or combined with dacarbazine (DTIC) 1-h infusion as front-line therapy for advanced melanoma. METHODS: The recommended dose (RD) for plitidepsin/DTIC was defined in the first stage. In the second stage, patients were randomised to receive single-agent plitidepsin 3.2 mg m(-2) (n = 20) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks (q4wk) or plitidepsin 2.4 mg m(-2) on days 1, 8 and 15 q4wk combined with DTIC 800 mg m(-2) q4wk (n = 38). RESULTS: The overall response rate with plitidepsin/DTIC was 21.4%; all responders had normal serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels and performance status ≤ 1 at baseline. Median progression-free survival (PFS) with plitidepsin/DTIC was 3.3 months in all patients, and 4.3 months in those with baseline normal LDH. No responses occurred with single-agent plitidepsin and median PFS was 1.5 months. Both regimens were well tolerated. Haematological abnormalities were more common and transaminase increases more severe with plitidepsin/DTIC. Treatment-related transaminase increases leading to infusion omission on day 8 were relatively common. No drug-drug pharmacokinetic interactions were found. CONCLUSION: This plitidepsin/DTIC schedule has antitumour activity and manageable toxicity in advanced melanoma. Further evaluation of plitidepsin 2.4 mg m(-2) fortnightly and DTIC 800 mg m(-2) q4wk is recommended.