Targeting the IL1ß Pathway for Cancer Immunotherapy Remodels the Tumor Microenvironment and Enhances Antitumor Immune Responses.

High levels of IL1ß can result in chronic inflammation, which in turn can promote tumor growth and metastasis. Inhibition of IL1ß could therefore be a promising therapeutic option in the treatment of cancer. Here, the effects of IL1ß blockade induced by the mAbs canakinumab and gevokizumab were evaluated alone or in combination with docetaxel, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1), anti-VEGFα, and anti-TGFß treatment in syngeneic and humanized mouse models of cancers of different origin. Canakinumab and gevokizumab did not show notable efficacy as single-agent therapies; however, IL1ß blockade enhanced the effectiveness of docetaxel and anti-PD-1. Accompanying these effects, blockade of IL1ß alone or in combination induced significant remodeling of the tumor microenvironment (TME), with decreased numbers of immune suppressive cells and increased tumor infiltration by dendritic cells (DC) and effector T cells. Further investigation revealed that cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAF) were the cell type most affected by treatment with canakinumab or gevokizumab in terms of change in gene expression. IL1ß inhibition drove phenotypic changes in CAF populations, particularly those with the ability to influence immune cell recruitment. These results suggest that the observed remodeling of the TME following IL1ß blockade may stem from changes in CAF populations. Overall, the results presented here support the potential use of IL1ß inhibition in cancer treatment. Further exploration in ongoing clinical studies will help identify the best combination partners for different cancer types, cancer stages, and lines of treatment.

Correction: Phase II Study Evaluating 2 Dosing Schedules of Oral Foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054014.].

Determining the need for a breast cancer awareness educational intervention for women with mild/moderate levels of intellectual disability: A qualitative descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: Following a review of the existing body of literature, this study aimed to explore the need for a breast cancer awareness intervention specifically targeted at women with mild/moderate levels of intellectual disability (ID) and provide perspectives on the preferred processes and content underpinning an intervention. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive design using semi-structured, individual (n = 5) and focus group (n = 5) interviews were used to engage with a non-probability, purposive sample of key stakeholders (n = 25) including women with mild/moderate levels of ID, caregivers and healthcare professionals. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Findings highlighted that an educational intervention should focus on breast awareness as opposed to breast cancer awareness. Additionally, findings identified that a combined breast awareness and healthy living intervention could be effective. However, the intervention needs to have a multimodal, hands-on, person-centred approach to learning which is underpinned by theory. Furthermore, integrating the caregivers and healthcare professionals into the intervention is recommended. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study provide a foundation for developing and implementing a theoretically underpinned, multimodal, breast awareness and healthy living educational intervention for women with mild/moderate levels of ID.

Correction: Phase II Study Evaluating 2 Dosing Schedules of Oral Foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054014.].

Defining breast cancer awareness and identifying barriers to breast cancer awareness for women with an intellectual disability: A review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Incidence rates for developing breast cancer are similar for women regardless of intellectual ability. However, women with an intellectual disability present with advanced breast cancers, which often have a poor prognosis. METHOD: A structured narrative review of the literature was performed to explore the concepts of breast awareness and breast cancer awareness and subsequently, identify barriers to breast cancer awareness encountered by women with an intellectual disability. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies involving people with varying levels of intellectual disability informed this review. The barriers to breast cancer awareness encountered by women with an intellectual disability include: lack of their understanding, the role of the carer and literacy issues. CONCLUSION: Identifying the barriers to breast cancer awareness for women with an intellectual disability will help to facilitate breast cancer awareness which has the potential to result in better long-term outcomes through an early diagnosis of breast cancer.

Inhibition of IL1ß by Canakinumab May Be Effective against Diverse Molecular Subtypes of Lung Cancer: An Exploratory Analysis of the CANTOS Trial.

In the Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS), inhibition of the IL1ß inflammatory pathway by canakinumab has been shown to significantly reduce lung cancer incidence and mortality. Here we performed molecular characterization of CANTOS patients who developed lung cancer during the study, including circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and soluble inflammatory biomarker analysis. Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) database ctDNA mutations were detected in 65% (46/71) of the CANTOS patients with lung cancer, with 51% (36/71) having detectable ctDNA at the time point closest to lung cancer diagnosis and 43% (29/67) having detectable ctDNA at trial randomization. Mutations commonly found in lung cancer were observed with no evidence of enrichment in any mutation following canakinumab treatment. Median time to lung cancer diagnosis in patients with (n = 29) versus without (n = 38) detectable COSMIC ctDNA mutations at baseline was 407 days versus 837 days (P = 0.011). For serum inflammatory biomarker analysis, circulating levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), IL6, IL18, IL1 receptor antagonist, TNFα, leptin, adiponectin, fibrinogen, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 were determined. Patients with the highest level of baseline CRP or IL6, both downstream of IL1ß signaling, trended toward a shorter time to lung cancer diagnosis. Other inflammation markers outside of the IL1ß pathway at baseline did not trend with time to lung cancer diagnosis. These results provide further evidence for the importance of IL1ß-mediated protumor inflammation in lung cancer and suggest canakinumab's effect may be mediated in part by delaying disease progression of diverse molecular subtypes of lung cancer. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings suggest that targeting the IL1ß inflammatory pathway might be critical in reducing tumor-promoting inflammation and lung cancer incidence.

Correlation of BRAF Mutation Status in Circulating-Free DNA and Tumor and Association with Clinical Outcome across Four BRAFi and MEKi Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Tumor-derived circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a potential alternative source from which to derive tumor mutation status. cfDNA data from four clinical studies of the BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) dabrafenib or the MEK inhibitor (MEKi) trametinib were analyzed to determine the association between BRAF mutation status in cfDNA and tumor tissue, and the association of BRAF cfDNA mutation status with baseline factors and clinical outcome. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma were enrolled in each study after central confirmation of BRAF status in tumor using a PCR-based assay. BRAF mutation status in cfDNA from patient plasma collected at baseline, 732 of 836 (88%) enrolled patients in total, was determined. RESULTS: BRAF mutations were detectable in cfDNA in 76% and 81% of patients with BRAF V600E/V600K-positive tumors, respectively. Patients negative for BRAF mutations in cfDNA had longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in each of the four studies, compared with patients with detectable cfDNA BRAF mutations. The presence of BRAF-mutant cfDNA was an independent prognostic factor for PFS after multivariate adjustment for baseline factors in three of four studies. Patients negative for BRAF mutation-positive cfDNA in plasma had higher response rates to dabrafenib and trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF mutations in cfDNA are detectable in >75% of late-stage melanoma patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. The lack of circulating, BRAF mutation-positive cfDNA is clinically significant for metastatic melanoma patients, and may be a prognostic marker for better disease outcome.

Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib.

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

Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition, as compared with BRAF inhibition alone, delays the emergence of resistance and reduces toxic effects in patients who have melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 423 previously untreated patients who had unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily) or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response rate, response duration, and safety. A preplanned interim overall survival analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months in the dabrafenib-trametinib group and 8.8 months in the dabrafenib-only group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the dabrafenib-trametinib group, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.99; P=0.03). The overall response rate was 67% in the dabrafenib-trametinib group and 51% in the dabrafenib-only group (P=0.002). At 6 months, the interim overall survival rate was 93% with dabrafenib-trametinib and 85% with dabrafenib alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.94; P=0.02). However, a specified efficacy-stopping boundary (two-sided P=0.00028) was not crossed. Rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups, although more dose modifications occurred in the dabrafenib-trametinib group. The rate of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was lower in the dabrafenib-trametinib group than in the dabrafenib-only group (2% vs. 9%), whereas pyrexia occurred in more patients (51% vs. 28%) and was more often severe (grade 3, 6% vs. 2%) in the dabrafenib-trametinib group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, improved the rate of progression-free survival in previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT01584648.).

Quantitative ER and PgR assessment as predictors of benefit from lapatinib in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Lapatinib, a dual epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and HER2 inhibitor, remains unproven in non-HER2-amplified metastatic breast cancer (MBC). EGF30008, a phase III trial of letrozole and lapatinib versus letrozole and placebo, demonstrated that lapatinib significantly improves outcome for postmenopausal women with HER2-amplified, but not HER2-negative, MBC. The hypothesis that low hormone receptor status is associated with benefit in this HER2-negative cohort was tested. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A blinded retrospective biomarker evaluation used immunohistochemistry (IHC) to semiquantify estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) expression (n = 821/952). HER2 status was determined by IHC and confirmed by FISH (n = 326). Effects of these biomarkers on progression-free survival (PFS) were examined in patients with available tissue. RESULTS: In HER2-negative, ER-positive MBC, median PFS was analyzed by ER and PgR expression (H-score) by quartile (Q). There was significant improvement in patients with low ER expression (Q1, H-score <160) with lapatinib and letrozole (13.6 vs. 6.7 months; P = 0.01). No benefit was associated with stronger ER expression (Q2/3, H-score ≥ 160 and <250; 13.6 vs. 14.2 months; Q4, H-score ≥ 250; 11.2 vs. 14.2 months). There was no association between PgR H-score and benefit from lapatinib. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive disease, weak ER expression is associated with worse outcome with letrozole treatment compared with the combination. The addition of lapatinib significantly improved PFS for this patient subgroup and augments data supporting interaction between steroid hormone and peptide hormone signaling. A prospective study validating this hypothesis is required.

Concurrent MEK2 mutation and BRAF amplification confer resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors in melanoma.

Although BRAF and MEK inhibitors have proven clinical benefits in melanoma, most patients develop resistance. We report a de novo MEK2-Q60P mutation and BRAF gain in a melanoma from a patient who progressed on the MEK inhibitor trametinib and did not respond to the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib. We also identified the same MEK2-Q60P mutation along with BRAF amplification in a xenograft tumor derived from a second melanoma patient resistant to the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib. Melanoma cells chronically exposed to trametinib acquired concurrent MEK2-Q60P mutation and BRAF-V600E amplification, which conferred resistance to MEK and BRAF inhibitors. The resistant cells had sustained MAPK activation and persistent phosphorylation of S6K. A triple combination of dabrafenib, trametinib, and the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor GSK2126458 led to sustained tumor growth inhibition. Hence, concurrent genetic events that sustain MAPK signaling can underlie resistance to both BRAF and MEK inhibitors, requiring novel therapeutic strategies to overcome it.

Phase II trial (BREAK-2) of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (GSK2118436) in patients with metastatic melanoma.

PURPOSE: Dabrafenib (GSK2118436) is a potent inhibitor of mutated BRAF kinase. Our multicenter, single-arm, phase II study assessed the safety and clinical activity of dabrafenib in BRAF(V600E/K) mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (mut(+) MM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Histologically confirmed patients with stage IV BRAF(V600E/K) mut(+) MM received oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily until disease progression, death, or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate in BRAF(V600E) mut(+) MM patients. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Exploratory objectives included the comparison of BRAF mutation status between tumor-specific circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and tumor tissue, and the evaluation of cfDNA as a predictor of clinical outcome. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients with BRAF(V600E) and 16 patients with BRAF(V600K) mut(+) MM were enrolled onto the study. In the BRAF(V600E) group, 45 patients (59%) had a confirmed response (95% CI, 48.2 to 70.3), including five patients (7%) with complete responses. Two patients (13%) with BRAF(V600K) mut(+) MM had a confirmed partial response (95% CI, 0 to 28.7). In the BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) groups, median PFS was 6.3 months and 4.5 months, and median OS was 13.1 months and 12.9 months, respectively. The most common AEs were arthralgia (33%), hyperkeratosis (27%), and pyrexia (24%). Overall, 25 patients (27%) experienced a serious AE and nine patients (10%) had squamous cell carcinoma. Baseline cfDNA levels predicted response rate and PFS in BRAF(V600E) mut(+) MM patients. CONCLUSION: Dabrafenib was well tolerated and clinically active in patients with BRAF(V600E/K) mut(+) MM. cfDNA may be a useful prognostic and response marker in future studies.

Tumor genetic analyses of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (GSK2118436).

PURPOSE: Dabrafenib is a selective inhibitor of V600-mutant BRAF kinase, which recently showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with dacarbazine, in metastatic melanoma patients. This study examined potential genetic markers associated with response and PFS in the phase I study of dabrafenib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Baseline (pretreatment or archival) melanoma samples were evaluated in 41 patients using a custom genotyping melanoma-specific assay, sequencing of PTEN, and copy number analysis using multiplex ligation amplification and array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Nine patients had on-treatment and/or progression samples available. RESULTS: All baseline patient samples had BRAF(V600E/K) confirmed. Baseline PTEN loss/mutation was not associated with best overall response to dabrafenib, but it showed a trend for shorter median PFS [18.3 (95% confidence interval, CI, 9.1-24.3) vs. 32.1 weeks (95% CI, 24.1-33), P=0.059]. Higher copy number of CCND1 (P=0.009) and lower copy number of CDKN2A (P=0.012) at baseline were significantly associated with decreased PFS. Although no melanomas had high-level amplification of BRAF, the two patients with progressive disease as their best response had BRAF copy gain in their tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Copy number changes in CDKN2A, CCND1, and mutation/copy number changes in PTEN correlated with the duration of PFS in patients treated with dabrafenib. The results suggest that these markers should be considered in the design and interpretation of future trials with selective BRAF inhibitors in advanced melanoma patients.

Phase II study evaluating 2 dosing schedules of oral foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 inhibitor, in patients with metastatic gastric cancer.

PURPOSE: The receptors for hepatocyte and vascular endothelial cell growth factors (MET and VEGFR2, respectively) are critical oncogenic mediators in gastric adenocarcinoma. The purpose is to examine the safety and efficacy of foretinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting MET, RON, AXL, TIE-2, and VEGFR2 receptors, for the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Foretinib safety and tolerability, and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated in patients using intermittent (240 mg/day, for 5 days every 2 weeks) or daily (80 mg/day) dosing schedules. Thirty evaluable patients were required to achieve alpha = 0.10 and beta = 0.2 to test the alternative hypothesis that single-agent foretinib would result in an ORR of ≥ 25%. Up to 10 additional patients could be enrolled to ensure at least eight with MET amplification. Correlative studies included tumor MET amplification, MET signaling, pharmacokinetics and plasma biomarkers of foretinib activity. RESULTS: From March 2007 until October 2009, 74 patients were enrolled; 74% male; median age, 61 years (range, 25-88); 93% had received prior therapy. Best response was stable disease (SD) in 10 (23%) patients receiving intermittent dosing and five (20%) receiving daily dosing; SD duration was 1.9-7.2 months (median 3.2 months). Of 67 patients with tumor samples, 3 had MET amplification, one of whom had SD. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 91% of patients. Rates of hypertension (35% vs. 15%) and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (23% vs. 8%) were higher with intermittent dosing. In both patients with high baseline tumor phospho-MET (pMET), the pMET:total MET protein ratio decreased with foretinib treatment. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that few gastric carcinomas are driven solely by MET and VEGFR2, and underscore the diverse molecular oncogenesis of this disease. Despite evidence of MET inhibition by foretinib, single-agent foretinib lacked efficacy in unselected patients with metastatic gastric cancer.

Dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain (BREAK-MB): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are common in patients with metastatic melanoma and median overall survival from their diagnosis is typically 17-22 weeks. We assessed dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial in 24 centres in six countries. We enrolled patients with histologically confirmed Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma and at least one asymptomatic brain metastasis (≥5 mm and ≤40 mm in diameter). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were split into two cohorts: those in cohort A had not received previous local treatment for brain metastases and those in cohort B had progressive brain metastases after previous local treatments. Patients received 150 mg oral dabrafenib twice a day until disease progression, death, or unacceptable adverse events. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma who achieved an overall intracranial response, which was defined as a complete response or partial response assessed with a modified form of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1). We included patients who received at least one dose of dabrafenib in efficacy and safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01266967. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2011, and Aug 5, 2011, we enrolled 172 patients: 89 (52%) in cohort A and 83 (48%) in cohort B. 139 (81%) had Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma. 29 (39·2%, 95% CI 28·0-51·2) of 74 patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma in cohort A achieved an overall intracranial response, as did 20 (30·8%, 19·9-43·4) of 65 in cohort B. One (6·7%, 0·2-31·9) of 15 patients with Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma achieved an overall intracranial response in cohort A, as did four (22·2%, 6·4-47·6) of 18 such patients in cohort B. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 38 (22%) patients. Eleven (6%) patients developed squamous-cell carcinoma (five [6%] patients in cohort A, of whom one also had keratoacanthoma; six [7%] in cohort B). Four grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in cohort A: one blood amylase increase, one convulsion, one lipase increase, and one neutropenia. Two grade 4 events occurred in cohort B: one agranulocytosis and one intracranial haemorrhage. 51 (30%) patients had a serious adverse event. The three most frequent serious adverse events were pyrexia (ten [6%] patients), intracranial haemorrhage (ten [6%]; one treatment-related), and squamous-cell carcinoma (11 [6%]). INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib has activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma and brain metastases irrespective of whether they are untreated or have been previously treated but have progressed. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Low or undetectable TPO receptor expression in malignant tissue and cell lines derived from breast, lung, and ovarian tumors.

BACKGROUND: Numerous efficacious chemotherapy regimens may cause thrombocytopenia. Thrombopoietin receptor (TPO-R) agonists, such as eltrombopag, represent a novel approach for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia. The TPO-R MPL is expressed on megakaryocytes and megakaryocyte precursors, although little is known about its expression on other tissues. METHODS: Breast, lung, and ovarian tumor samples were analyzed for MPL expression by microarray and/or quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), and for TPO-R protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Cell line proliferation assays were used to analyze the in vitro effect of eltrombopag on breast, lung, and ovarian tumor cell proliferation. The lung carcinoma cell lines were also analyzed for TPO-R protein expression by Western blot. RESULTS: MPL mRNA was not detectable in 118 breast tumors and was detectable at only very low levels in 48% of 29 lung tumors studied by microarray analysis. By qRT-PCR, low but detectable levels of MPL mRNA were detectable in some normal (14-43%) and malignant (3-17%) breast, lung, and ovarian tissues. A comparison of MPL to EPOR, ERBB2, and IGF1R mRNA demonstrates that MPL mRNA levels were far lower than those of EPOR and ERBB2 mRNA in the same tissues. IHC analysis showed negligible TPO-R protein expression in tumor tissues, confirming mRNA analysis. Culture of breast, lung, and ovarian carcinoma cell lines showed no increase, and in fact, showed a decrease in proliferation following incubation with eltrombopag. Western blot analyses revealed no detectable TPO-R protein expression in the lung carcinoma cell lines. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple analyses of breast, lung, and ovarian tumor samples and/or cell lines show no evidence of MPL mRNA or TPO-R protein expression. Eltrombopag does not stimulate growth of breast, lung, or ovarian tumor cell lines at doses likely to exert their actions on megakaryocytes and megakaryocyte precursors.

Prognostic or predictive plasma cytokines and angiogenic factors for patients treated with pazopanib for metastatic renal-cell cancer: a retrospective analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Several targeted drugs are approved for treatment of patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer, but no validated biomarkers are available for prediction of clinical outcome. We aimed to assess the prognostic and predictive associations of pretreatment plasma concentrations of cytokine and angiogenic factors (CAFs) with data from a phase 2 and a phase 3 trial of pazopanib treatment. METHODS: We used a three-step approach for screening, confirmation, and validation of prospective CAF biomarkers. We screened 17 CAFs in 129 patients who had the greatest or least tumour shrinkage in a phase 2 trial of 215 patients treated with pazopanib. We confirmed associations of candidate CAFs (those identified in the screening and from previous studies) with tumour response and progression-free survival (PFS) in 215 patients from this phase 2 trial with an independent analytical platform. We validated confirmed markers in 344 patients from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical study of pazopanib. FINDINGS: Five candidate markers emerged from initial screening-interleukin 6, interleukin 8, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMP)-1, and E-selectin. Confirmatory analyses identified associations of interleukin 6, interleukin 8, VEGF, osteopontin, E-selectin, and HGF with continuous tumour shrinkage or PFS in patients treated with pazopanib. In the validation set of samples from the phase 3 trial, patients treated with pazopanib who had high concentrations (relative to median) of interleukin 8 (p=0·006), osteopontin (p=0·0004), HGF (p=0·010), and TIMP-1 (p=0·006) had shorter PFS than did those with low concentrations. In the placebo group, high concentrations of interleukin 6 (p<0·0001), interleukin 8 (p=0·002), and osteopontin (p<0·0001) were all prognostically associated with shorter PFS. These factors were stronger prognostic markers than were standard clinical classifications (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and Heng criteria). High concentrations of interleukin 6 were predictive of improved relative PFS benefit from pazopanib compared with placebo (p(interaction)=0·009); standard clinical classifications were not predictive of PFS benefit. INTERPRETATION: CAF profiles could provide prognostic information beyond that of standard clinical classification and identify markers predictive of pazopanib benefit in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Further studies of the predictive effects of these markers in different populations and with different drugs (eg, mTOR inhibitors) are warranted. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in studies of phase 1 and 2 in patients with BRAF(V600)-mutated metastatic melanoma. We studied the efficacy of dabrafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutated metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients in this open-label phase 3 trial between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 1, 2011. This report is based on a data cutoff date of Dec 19, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, stage IV or unresectable stage III BRAF(V600E) mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily, orally) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (unresectable III+IVM1a+IVM1b vs IVM1c). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and was analysed by intention to treat; safety was assessed per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227889. FINDINGS: Of the 733 patients screened, 250 were randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib (187 patients) or dacarbazine (63 patients). Median progression-free survival was 5·1 months for dabrafenib and 2·7 months for dacarbazine, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·30 (95% CI 0·18-0·51; p<0·0001). At data cutoff, 107 (57%) patients in the dabrafenib group and 14 (22%) in the dacarbazine group remained on randomised treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 100 (53%) of the 187 patients who received dabrafenib and in 26 (44%) of the 59 patients who received dacarbazine. The most common adverse events with dabrafenib were skin-related toxic effects, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. The most common adverse events with dacarbazine were nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, fatigue, and asthenia. Grade 3-4 adverse events were uncommon in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Activating mutations in serine-threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF) are found in 50% of patients with advanced melanoma. Selective BRAF-inhibitor therapy improves survival, as compared with chemotherapy, but responses are often short-lived. In previous trials, MEK inhibition appeared to be promising in this population. METHODS: In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned 322 patients who had metastatic melanoma with a V600E or V600K BRAF mutation to receive either trametinib, an oral selective MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio. Patients received trametinib (2 mg orally) once daily or intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to receive trametinib. Progression-free survival was the primary end point, and overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months in the trametinib group and 1.5 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the trametinib group, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63; P<0.001). At 6 months, the rate of overall survival was 81% in the trametinib group and 67% in the chemotherapy group despite crossover (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92; P=0.01). Rash, diarrhea, and peripheral edema were the most common toxic effects in the trametinib group and were managed with dose interruption and dose reduction; asymptomatic and reversible reduction in the cardiac ejection fraction and ocular toxic effects occurred infrequently. Secondary skin neoplasms were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Trametinib, as compared with chemotherapy, improved rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients who had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.).