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/).

Associations of Dietary Factors with Cutaneous Melanoma: A Case-Control Study in Greece with Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: It has been postulated that nutrition may influence the risk for cutaneous melanoma (CM); therefore, we aimed to assess the associations of food groups and individual nutrient intakes with CM in a Greek population. METHODS: In this case-control study, 151 patients with histologically confirmed CM, newly diagnosed and treated in the Oncology Department of the "Laikon" University Hospital (Athens, Greece), and 151 age- and sex-matched healthy individuals residing in the Athens metropolitan area, recruited among participants for routine health examinations, were included. All participants completed a questionnaire comprising anthropometric measurements, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-related variables. A validated, semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire was used to assess average consumption of 136 food items during the 12 months preceding the onset of disease. Multivariate conditional regression models were used to derive odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) regarding the association of nine food groups and seven macronutrients with CM. RESULTS: Statistically significant positive associations with CM were found with higher energy intake (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.22-2.30) and intake of saturated fatty acids (OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.00-5.28), after adjusting for sun sensitivity, major depression history, and alcohol intake. Inverse associations with higher intake of milk and dairy products (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88), fruits (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51-0.90), added lipids (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47-0.91), and sugars and syrups (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53-0.93) were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond intrinsic risk factors, our results support associations of CM with multiple food groups and nutrients; if confirmed by prospective studies, these findings can add further knowledge about this fatal cancer.

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.

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).

Overall Survival and Response with Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Advanced Melanoma.

Survival and Response with Nivolumab and RelatlimabIn this follow-up, patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab + relatlimab or nivolumab alone. After approximately 6 months of additional follow-up, the combination's median progression-free survival was 10.2 months versus 4.6 months for monotherapy. The difference in overall survival rates was not statistically significant.

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.

Relatlimab and Nivolumab versus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) are distinct inhibitory immune checkpoints that contribute to T-cell exhaustion. The combination of relatlimab, a LAG-3-blocking antibody, and nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, has been shown to be safe and to have antitumor activity in patients with previously treated melanoma, but the safety and activity in patients with previously untreated melanoma need investigation. METHODS: In this phase 2-3, global, double-blind, randomized trial, we evaluated relatlimab and nivolumab as a fixed-dose combination as compared with nivolumab alone when administered intravenously every 4 weeks to patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4 to 15.7) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 5.6) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92]; P = 0.006 by the log-rank test). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 47.7% (95% CI, 41.8 to 53.2) with relatlimab-nivolumab as compared with 36.0% (95% CI, 30.5 to 41.6) with nivolumab. Progression-free survival across key subgroups favored relatlimab-nivolumab over nivolumab. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.9% of patients in the relatlimab-nivolumab group and in 9.7% of patients in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: The inhibition of two immune checkpoints, LAG-3 and PD-1, provided a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than inhibition of PD-1 alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable melanoma. Relatlimab and nivolumab in combination showed no new safety signals. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; RELATIVITY-047 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03470922.).

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.

A Th1/IFNγ Gene Signature Is Prognostic in the Adjuvant Setting of Resectable High-Risk Melanoma but Not in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Immune components of the tumor microenvironment (TME) have been associated with disease outcome. We prospectively evaluated the association of an immune-related gene signature (GS) with clinical outcome in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumor samples from two phase III studies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The GS was prospectively validated using an adaptive signature design to optimize it for the sample type and technology used in phase III studies. One-third of the samples were used as "training set"; the remaining two thirds, constituting the "test set," were used for the prospective validation of the GS. RESULTS: In the melanoma training set, the expression level of eight Th1/IFNγ-related genes in tumor-positive lymph node tissue predicted the duration of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the placebo arm. This GS was prospectively and independently validated as prognostic in the test set. Building a multivariate Cox model in the test set placebo patients from clinical covariates and the GS score, an increased number of melanoma-involved lymph nodes and the GS were associated with DFS and OS. This GS was not associated with DFS in NSCLC, although expression of the Th1/IFNγ-related genes was associated with the presence of lymphocytes in tumor samples in both indications. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence that expression of Th1/IFNγ genes in the TME, as measured by this GS, is associated with clinical outcome in melanoma. This suggests that, using this GS, patients with stage IIIB/C melanoma can be classified into different risk groups.

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).

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.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. In the United States, ipilimumab has also been approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma on the basis of recurrence-free and overall survival rates that were higher than those with placebo in a phase 3 trial. We wanted to determine the efficacy of nivolumab versus ipilimumab for adjuvant therapy in patients with resected advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 906 patients (≥15 years of age) who were undergoing complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma to receive an intravenous infusion of either nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (453 patients) or ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (453 patients). The patients were treated for a period of up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, a report of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, the 12-month rate of recurrence-free survival was 70.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.1 to 74.5) in the nivolumab group and 60.8% (95% CI, 56.0 to 65.2) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.65; 97.56% CI, 0.51 to 0.83; P<0.001). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 14.4% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 45.9% of those in the ipilimumab group; treatment was discontinued because of any adverse event in 9.7% and 42.6% of the patients, respectively. Two deaths (0.4%) related to toxic effects were reported in the ipilimumab group more than 100 days after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma, adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events than adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 238 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02388906 ; Eudra-CT number, 2014-002351-26 .).

The role of depression and personality traits in patients with melanoma: a South-European study.

We explored the potential association of depression history and personality, evaluated through a robust questionnaire tool, namely the Eysenck Personality Scale, with disease risk and progression among Greek patients. A total of 106 melanoma patients and their 1 : 1 sex-matched controls were interviewed on the basis of a questionnaire comprising phenotypic, sociodemographic, lifestyle and medical history variables, as well as information on history of lifetime major depression. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, measuring the four personality dimensions (extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, lie), was thereafter completed. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for melanoma risk were derived through multiple logistic regression analyses, whereas potential predictors of survival were explored using Cox proportional hazards models. Sun sensitivity score [OR: 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-2.06] and major depression history (OR: 5.72, 95% CI: 1.38-23.73) were significantly associated with melanoma, whereas inverse associations of extraversion (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.97) and psychoticism score (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-1.00) were noted. These associations were more pronounced and remained solely among female patients; notably, decreased extraversion (OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76-0.98) and psychoticism score (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43-0.91), as well as increased depression history (OR: 10.69, 95% CI: 1.43-80.03) were evident. Cox-derived hazard ratios showed nonsignificant associations of depression history and personality with disease outcome. Our data support the hypotheses that depression history and personality are associated with melanoma risk. No effect on survival after cancer diagnosis was observed. If confirmed in future studies, these associations may contribute toward better understanding the etiology of melanoma, enhancing health-related quality of life.

The genetic landscape of clinical resistance to RAF inhibition in metastatic melanoma.

Most patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant metastatic melanoma develop resistance to selective RAF kinase inhibitors. The spectrum of clinical genetic resistance mechanisms to RAF inhibitors and options for salvage therapy are incompletely understood. We performed whole-exome sequencing on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumors from 45 patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant metastatic melanoma who received vemurafenib or dabrafenib monotherapy. Genetic alterations in known or putative RAF inhibitor resistance genes were observed in 23 of 45 patients (51%). Besides previously characterized alterations, we discovered a "long tail" of new mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway alterations (MAP2K2, MITF) that confer RAF inhibitor resistance. In three cases, multiple resistance gene alterations were observed within the same tumor biopsy. Overall, RAF inhibitor therapy leads to diverse clinical genetic resistance mechanisms, mostly involving MAPK pathway reactivation. Novel therapeutic combinations may be needed to achieve durable clinical control of BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma. Integrating clinical genomics with preclinical screens may model subsequent resistance studies.

Adjuvant interferon alfa in malignant melanoma: an interdisciplinary and multinational expert review.

Interferon alfa (IFNα) and pegylated IFNα2b (PegIFNα2b) are the only agents currently approved for the adjuvant treatment of resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. Meta-analyses showed statistically significant disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits versus controls but did not clarify optimal dose/duration. We review data from all recent clinical trials to provide the latest information on dose, duration, and potential predictive factors of treatment success. Recent data largely confirm DFS and OS benefits but optimal dose/duration is not clarified. The data suggest greater responses in patients with stage III micro-metastatic versus macro-metastatic disease, and ulceration may also predict greater sensitivity to therapy, although further investigation is needed. Presently, IFNα and PegIFNα2b remain valid adjuvant therapies following resection of high-risk melanoma; the most appropriate treatment regimen should be determined on an individual patient basis according to patient lifestyle and approach, potential for toxicity, and the available clinical evidence.

Obesity and risk of malignant melanoma: a meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.

Although obesity is an established risk factor for several cancer types, its possible role in the aetiology of malignant melanoma remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to examine the association between obesity and melanoma risk, exploring any tentative gender-specific associations. After the identification of eligible studies, we estimated pooled effect estimates (odds ratios and relative risks), undertook a meta-regression analysis and analysed separately risk of malignant melanoma among males and females in relation to body mass index (BMI) and body surface area (BSA). Out of the 21 eligible articles, 11 used a case-control design encompassing 4460 cases/6342 controls; 10 used a cohort design whose total size comprised 7895 incident cases/6,368,671 subjects. Among males, the pooled effect estimate was 1.31 (95%confidence interval (CI): 1.18-1.45) for overweight and 1.31 (95%CI: 1.19-1.44) for obese. Meta-regression revealed no significant slope, most probably due to the underlying plateau in effect estimates. Among females, no significant association was documented; the pooled effect estimate for overweight and obese subjects was 0.98 (95%CI: 0.92-1.05) and 0.99 (95%CI: 0.83-1.18), respectively. Noticeably, there was evidence for confounding between sunlight exposure and obesity in females. All results were reproducible upon analyses on BSA. In conclusion, overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk of malignant melanoma among males. Meticulous assessment of sunlight exposure is needed especially in women, since self limited public sun exposure may be prevalent among overweight or obese females. Higher-order associations between BMI and melanoma risk should be addressed and examined by the future studies.

19p13.1 is a triple-negative-specific breast cancer susceptibility locus.

The 19p13.1 breast cancer susceptibility locus is a modifier of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers and is also associated with the risk of ovarian cancer. Here, we investigated 19p13.1 variation and risk of breast cancer subtypes, defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status, using 48,869 breast cancer cases and 49,787 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Variants from 19p13.1 were not associated with breast cancer overall or with ER-positive breast cancer but were significantly associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk [rs8170 OR, 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-1.15; P = 3.49 × 10(-5)] and triple-negative (ER-, PR-, and HER2-negative) breast cancer (rs8170: OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31; P = 2.22 × 10(-7)). However, rs8170 was no longer associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk when triple-negative cases were excluded (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P = 0.62). In addition, a combined analysis of triple-negative cases from BCAC and the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Consortium (TNBCC; N = 3,566) identified a genome-wide significant association between rs8170 and triple-negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18-1.33; P = 3.31 × 10(-13)]. Thus, 19p13.1 is the first triple-negative-specific breast cancer risk locus and the first locus specific to a histologic subtype defined by ER, PR, and HER2 to be identified. These findings provide convincing evidence that genetic susceptibility to breast cancer varies by tumor subtype and that triple-negative tumors and other subtypes likely arise through distinct etiologic pathways.

Next generation of immunotherapy for melanoma.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy has a long history with striking but limited success in patients with melanoma. To date, interleukin-2 and interferon-alfa2b are the only approved immunotherapeutic agents for melanoma in the United States. DESIGN: Tumor evasion of host immune responses, and strategies for overcoming tumor-induced immunosuppression are reviewed. Several novel immunotherapies currently in worldwide phase III clinical testing for melanoma are discussed. RESULTS: The limitations of immunotherapy for melanoma stem from tumor-induced mechanisms of immune evasion that render the host tolerant of tumor antigens. For example, melanoma inhibits the maturation of antigen-presenting cells, preventing full T-cell activation and downregulating the effector antitumor immune response. New immunotherapies targeting critical regulatory elements of the immune system may overcome tolerance and promote a more effective antitumor immune response. These include monoclonal antibodies that block the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) and toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonists. Blockade of CTLA4 prevents inhibitory signals that downregulate T-cell activation. TLR9 agonists stimulate dendritic cell maturation and ultimately induce a more effective immune response. These approaches have been shown to stimulate acute immune activation with concomitant appearance of transient adverse events mediated by the immune system. The pattern and duration of immune responses associated with these new modalities differ from those associated with cytokines and cytotoxic agents. In addition, vaccines are being developed that may ultimately target melanoma either alone or in combination with these immunomodulatory therapies. CONCLUSION: The successes of cytokine and interferon therapy of melanoma, coupled with an array of new approaches, are generating new enthusiasm for the immunotherapy of melanoma.

Chemotherapy for metastatic melanoma: time for a change?

Melanoma is a neoplasm with a rising incidence. Early-stage melanoma is curable, but advanced, metastatic melanoma almost uniformly is fatal, and patients with such advanced disease have a short median survival. Systemic therapy remains unsatisfactory, inducing complete durable responses in a small minority of patients. For the current review, the authors focused on the current role of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic melanoma and the future prospects for improvements for multiagent chemotherapy and chemotherapy combined with immunomodulatory and/or molecularly targeted agents. They discuss roles of single-agent chemotherapy, combination chemotherapy, combinations of chemotherapy with immunomodulatory or hormone agents, biochemotherapy, and combination chemotherapy with targeted therapies.