Treatment with a retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I) agonist as monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from two phase 1 studies.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated MK-4621, an oligonucleotide that binds and activates retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I), as monotherapy (NCT03065023) and in combination with the anti-programmed death 1 antibody pembrolizumab (NCT03739138). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were ≥ 18 years with histologically/cytologically confirmed advanced/metastatic solid tumors with injectable lesions. MK-4621 (0.2‒0.8 mg) was administered intratumorally as a stable formulation with jetPEI™ twice weekly over a 4-week cycle as monotherapy and weekly in 3-week cycles for up to 6 cycles in combination with 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuation due to AEs. RESULTS: Fifteen patients received MK-4621 monotherapy and 30 received MK-4621 plus pembrolizumab. The only DLT, grade 3 pleural effusion that subsequently resolved, occurred in a patient who received MK-4621/jetPEI™ 0.8 mg plus pembrolizumab. 93% of patients experienced ≥ 1 treatment-related AE with both monotherapy and combination therapy. No patients experienced an objective response per RECIST v1.1 with MK-4621 monotherapy; 4 (27%) had stable disease. Three (10%) patients who received combination therapy had a partial response. Serum and tumor biomarker analyses provided evidence that MK-4621 treatment induced an increase in gene expression of interferon signaling pathway members and associated chemokines and cytokines. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with MK-4621 monotherapy or in combination with pembrolizumab experienced tolerable safety and modest antitumor activity, and there was evidence that MK-4621 activated the RIG-I pathway. At the doses tested, MK-4621 did not confer meaningful clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03065023 and NCT03739138.

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.

Paclitaxel with or without trametinib or pazopanib in advanced wild-type BRAF melanoma (PACMEL): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced melanoma treatments often rely on immunotherapy or targeting mutations, with few treatment options for wild-type BRAF (BRAF-wt) melanoma. However, the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway is activated in most melanoma, including BRAF-wt. We assessed whether inhibiting this pathway by adding kinase inhibitors trametinib or pazopanib to paclitaxel chemotherapy improved outcomes in patients with advanced BRAF-wt melanoma in a phase II, randomised and open-label trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to paclitaxel alone or with trametinib or pazopanib. Paclitaxel was given for a maximum of six cycles, while 2 mg trametinib and 800 mg pazopanib were administered orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Participants and investigators were unblinded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Participants were randomised to paclitaxel alone (n = 38), paclitaxel and trametinib (n = 36), or paclitaxel and pazopanib (n = 37). Adding trametinib significantly improved 6-month PFS [time ratio (TR), 1.47; 90% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.01, P = 0.04] and ORR (42% versus 13%; P = 0.01) but had no effect on OS (P = 0.25). Adding pazopanib did not benefit 6-month PFS; (TR 1.36; 90% CI 0.96-1.93; P = 0.14), ORR, or OS. Toxicity increased in both combination arms. CONCLUSION: In this phase II trial, adding trametinib to paclitaxel chemotherapy for BRAF-wt melanoma improved PFS and substantially increased ORR but did not impact OS.This study was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2011-002545-35, and with the ISRCTN registry, number 43327231.

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.

Translational study identifies XPF and MUS81 as predictive biomarkers for oxaliplatin-based peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is used to treat patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), but no biomarkers are currently available for patient selection. We performed a prospective, clinical trial to identify potential biomarkers associated with clinical outcomes. Tumor tissue was obtained from 38 patients with resectable EAC before and after 2 cycles of oxaliplatin-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Pre-treatment mRNA expression of 280 DNA repair (DNAR) genes was tested for association with histopathological regression at surgery, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). High expression of 13 DNA damage repair genes was associated with DFS less than one year (P < 0.05); expression of 11 DNAR genes were associated with worse OS (P < 0.05). From clinical associations with outcomes, two genes, ERCC1 and EME1, were identified as candidate biomarkers. In cell lines in vitro, we showed the mechanism of action related to repair of oxaliplatin-induced DNA damage by depletion and knockout of protein binding partners of the candidate biomarkers, XPF and MUS81 respectively. In clinical samples from the clinical trial, pre-treatment XPF protein levels were associated with pathological response, and MUS81 protein was associated with 1-year DFS. XPF and MUS81 merit further validation in prospective clinical trials as biomarkers that may predict clinical response of EAC to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

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.

Metabolic nodal response as a prognostic marker after neoadjuvant therapy for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The ability to predict recurrence and survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and surgery for oesophageal cancer remains elusive. This study evaluated the role of [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT in assessing tumour and nodal response as a prognostic marker. METHODS: This was a single-centre UK cohort study. From 2006 to 2014, patients with oesophageal cancer staged with PET-CT before NAC, and restaged by CT or PET-CT before resection, were included. Pathological tumour response was evaluated using Mandard regression grades. Metabolic tumour and nodal responses (mTR and mNR respectively) were quantified using absolute and threshold reductions. RESULTS: Among 294 included patients, mTR and mNR independently predicted prognosis before surgery. After surgery, mNR (but not mTR), pathological tumour response, resection margin status and pathological node category predicted prognosis. Patients with FDG-avid nodal disease after NAC were at high risk of recurrence/death at 1 and 2 years (43 and 71 per cent respectively; P = 0·030 and P = 0·025 versus patients without avid nodes), and had a worse prognosis than patients with non-avid nodal metastases: hazard ratio 4·19 (95 per cent c.i. 1·87 to 9·40) and 2·11 (1·12 to 3·97) respectively versus patients without nodal metastases. Considering mTR and mNR response separately improved prognostication. CONCLUSION: mNR is a novel prognostic factor, independent of conventional N status. Primary and nodal tumours may respond discordantly and patients with FDG-avid nodes after NAC have a poor prognosis.

An Adaptive Study to Determine the Optimal Dose of the Tablet Formulation of the PARP Inhibitor Olaparib.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib is poorly soluble, requiring advanced drug delivery technologies for adequate bioavailability. Sixteen capsules/day are required for the approved 400 mg twice-daily dose; a tablet formulation was developed to reduce pill burden. This clinical trial evaluated the optimal dose and administration schedule of the tablet formulation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two stages of sequentially enrolled cohorts: stage 1, pharmacokinetic properties of tablet and capsule formulations were compared in patients with advanced solid tumours; stage 2, tablet dose escalation with expansion cohorts at doses/schedules of interest in patients with solid tumours and BRCAm breast/ovarian cancers. RESULTS: Olaparib 200 mg tablets displayed similar Cmax,ss, but lower AUCss and Cmin,ss than 400 mg capsules. Following multiple dosing, steady-state exposure with tablets ≥300 mg matched or exceeded that of 400 mg capsules. After dose escalation, while 400 mg twice daily was the tablet maximum tolerated dose based on haematological toxicity, 65 % of patients in the randomized expansion phase eventually required dose reduction to 300 mg. Intermittent tablet administration did not significantly improve tolerability. Tumour shrinkage was similar for 300 and 400 mg tablet and 400 mg capsule cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended monotherapy dose of olaparib tablet for Phase III trials was 300 mg twice daily, simplifying drug administration from 16 capsules to four tablets per day. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00777582 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Pragmatic staging of oesophageal cancer using decision theory involving selective endoscopic ultrasonography, PET and laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Following CT, guidelines for staging oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) cancer recommend endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), PET-CT and laparoscopy for T3-T4 GOJ tumours. These recommendations are based on generic utilities, but it is unclear whether the test risk outweighs the potential benefit for some patients. This study sought to quantify investigation risks, benefits and utilities, in order to develop pragmatic, personalized staging recommendations. METHODS: All patients with a histological diagnosis of oesophageal or GOJ cancer staged between May 2006 and July 2013 comprised a development set; those staged from July 2013 to July 2014 formed the prospective validation set. Probability thresholds of altering management were calculated and predictive factors identified. Algorithms and models (decision tree analysis, logistic regression, artificial neural networks) were validated internally and independently. RESULTS: Some 953 patients were staged following CT, by [(18) F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT (918), EUS (798) and laparoscopy (458). Of these patients, 829 comprised the development set (800 PET-CT, 698 EUS, 397 laparoscopy) and 124 the validation set (118 PET-CT, 100 EUS, 61 laparoscopy). EUS utility in the 71.8 per cent of patients with T2-T4a disease on CT was minimal (0.4 per cent), its risk exceeding benefit. EUS was moderately accurate for pT1 N0 disease. A number of factors predicted metastases on PET-CT and laparoscopy, although none could inform an algorithm. PET-CT altered management in 23.0 per cent, and laparoscopy in 7.1 per cent, including those with T2 and distal oesophageal tumours. CONCLUSION: Although EUS provided additional information on T and N category, its risk outweighed potential benefit in patients with T2-T4a disease on CT. Laparoscopy seemed justified for distal oesophageal tumours of T2 or greater.

Randomized phase II study evaluating veliparib (ABT-888) with temozolomide in patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Veliparib (ABT-888) is a potent, orally bioavailable, small-molecule inhibitor of the DNA repair enzymes poly ADP-ribose polymerase-1 and -2. Veliparib enhances the efficacy of temozolomide (TMZ) and other cytotoxic agents in preclinical tumor models. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, adults with unresectable stage III or IV metastatic melanoma were randomized 1:1:1 to TMZ plus veliparib 20 or 40 mg, or placebo twice daily. Efficacy end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Patients (N = 346) were randomized between February 2009 and January 2010. Median [95% confidence interval (CI)] PFS was 3.7 (3.0-5.5), 3.6 (1.9-4.1), and 2 (1.9-3.7) months in the 20-mg, 40-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Median (95% CI) OS was 10.8 (9.0-13.1), 13.6 (11.4-15.9), and 12.9 (9.8-14.3) months, respectively; ORR was 10.3%, 8.7%, and 7.0%. Exploratory analyses showed patients with low ERCC1 expression had longer PFS when TMZ was combined with veliparib. Toxicities were as expected for TMZ. The frequencies of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and leukopenia were significantly increased in the veliparib groups. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events, mainly hematologic toxicities, were seen in 55%, 63%, and 41% of patients in the 20-mg, 40-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Median PFS with 20 and 40 mg veliparib almost doubled numerically compared with placebo, but the improvements did not reach statistical significance. OS was not increased with veliparib. Toxicities were similar to TMZ monotherapy, but with increased frequency.

Phase I study of olaparib plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumours and comparison with gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib (Lynparza) is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in cancers with homologous recombination defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase I, dose-escalation trial, patients with advanced solid tumours received olaparib (50-200 mg capsules b.i.d.) continuously or intermittently (days 1-14, per 28-day cycle) plus gemcitabine [i.v. 600-800 mg/m(2); days 1, 8, 15, and 22 (cycle 1), days 1, 8, and 15 (subsequent cycles)] to establish the maximum tolerated dose. A separate dose-escalation phase evaluated olaparib in tablet formulation (100 mg o.d./b.i.d.; days 1-14) plus gemcitabine (600 mg/m(2)). In an expansion phase, patients with genetically unselected locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomised 2 : 1 to the tolerated olaparib capsule combination dose or gemcitabine alone (1000 mg/m(2)). RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were treated [dose-escalation phase, n = 44 (tablet cohort, n = 12); dose-expansion phase, n = 22 (olaparib plus gemcitabine, n = 15; gemcitabine alone, n = 7)]. In the dose-escalation phase, four patients (6%) experienced dose-limiting toxicities (raised alanine aminotransferase, n = 2; neutropenia, n = 1; febrile neutropenia, n = 1). Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 38/47 patients (81%) treated with olaparib capsules plus gemcitabine; most common were haematological toxicities (55%). Tolerated combinations were olaparib 100 mg b.i.d. capsule (intermittently, days 1-14) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) and olaparib 100 mg o.d. tablet (intermittently, days 1-14) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2). There were no differences in efficacy observed during the dose-expansion phase. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib 100 mg b.i.d. (intermittent dosing; capsules) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) is tolerated in advanced solid tumour patients, with no unmanageable/unexpected toxicities. Continuous dosing of olaparib or combination with gemcitabine at doses >600 mg/m(2) was not considered to have an acceptable tolerability profile for further study. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT00515866.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of somatic and germline DNA sequence biomarkers of esophageal cancer survival, therapy response and stage.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need for biomarkers to help predict prognosis and guide management of esophageal cancer. This review identifies, evaluates and meta-analyses the evidence for reported somatic and germline DNA sequence biomarkers of outcome and stage. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases (20 August 2014), in conjunction with the ASCO Level of Evidence scale for biomarker research. Meta-analyses were carried out for all reported markers associated with outcome measures by more than one study. RESULTS: Four thousand and four articles were identified, 762 retrieved and 182 studies included. There were 65 reported markers of survival or recurrence 12 (18.5%) were excluded due to multiple comparisons. Following meta-analysis, significant associations were seen for six tumor variants (mutant TP53 and PIK3CA, copy number gain of ERBB2/HER2, CCND1 and FGF3, and chromosomal instability/ploidy) and seven germline polymorphisms: ERCC1 rs3212986, ERCC2 rs1799793, TP53 rs1042522, MDM2 rs2279744, TYMS rs34743033, ABCB1 rs1045642 and MTHFR rs1801133. Twelve germline markers of treatment complications were reported; 10 were excluded. Two tumor and 15 germline markers (11 excluded) of chemo (radio)therapy response were reported. Following meta-analysis, associations were demonstrated for mutant TP53, ERCC1 rs11615 and XRCC1 rs25487. There were 41 tumor/germline reported markers of stage; 27 (65.9%) were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous DNA markers of outcome and stage have been reported, yet few are backed by high-quality evidence. Despite this, a small number of variants appear reliable. These merit evaluation in prospective trials, within the context of high-throughput sequencing and gene expression.

The effect of formalizing enhanced recovery after esophagectomy with a protocol.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways aim to accelerate functional return and discharge from hospital. They have proven effective in many forms of surgery, most notably colorectal. However, experience in esophagectomy has been limited. A recent study reported significant reductions in pulmonary complications, mortality, and length of stay following the introduction of an ERAS protocol alone, without the introduction of any clinical changes. We instituted a similar change 16 months ago, introducing a protocol to provide a formal framework, for our existing postoperative care. This retrospective analysis compared outcome following esophagectomy for the 16 months before and 20 months after this change. Data were collected from prospectively maintained secure web-based multidisciplinary databases. Complication severity was classified using the Clavien-Dindo scale. Operative mortality was defined as death within 30 days of surgery, or at any point during the same hospital admission. Lower respiratory tract infection was defined as clinical evidence of infection, with or without radiological signs. Respiratory complications included lower respiratory tract infection, pleural effusion (irrespective of drainage), pulmonary collapse, and pneumothorax. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v21. One hundred thirty-two patients underwent esophagectomy (55 protocol group; 77 before). All were performed open. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, operation, use of neoadjuvant therapy, cell type, stage, tumor site, or American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Median length of stay was 14.0 days (protocol) compared with 12.0 before (interquartile range 9-19 and 9.5-15.5, respectively; P = 0.073, Mann-Whitney U-test). Readmission within 30 days of discharge occurred in five (9.26%) and six (8.19%; P = 1.000, Fisher's exact test). There were four in-hospital deaths (3.03%): one (1.82%) and three (3.90%), respectively (P = 0.641). There were no differences in the severity of complications (P = non-significant; Pearson's chi-squared). There were no differences in the type of complications occurring in either group. The protocol was completed successfully by 26 (47.3%). No baseline factors were predictive of this. In contrast to previous studies, we did not demonstrate any improvement in outcome by formalizing our existing pathway using a written protocol. Consequently, improvements in short-term outcome from esophagectomy within ERAS would seem to be primarily due to improvements in components of perioperative care. Consequently, we would recommend that centers introducing new (or reviewing existing) ERAS pathways for esophagectomy focus on optimizing clinical aspects of such standardized pathways.

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.

Melanoma in buckinghamshire: data from the inception of the skin cancer multidisciplinary team.

Background. Melanoma incidence is increasing faster than any other cancer in the UK. The introduction of specialist skin cancer multidisciplinary teams intends to improve the provision of care to patients suffering from melanoma. This study aims to investigate the management and survival of patients diagnosed with melanoma around the time of inception of the regional skin cancer multidisciplinary team both to benchmark the service against published data and to enable future analysis of the impact of the specialisation of skin cancer care. Methods. All patients diagnosed with primary cutaneous melanoma between January 1, 2003 and December 3, 2005 were identified. Data on clinical and histopathological features, surgical procedures, complications, disease recurrence and 5-year survival were collected and analysed. Results. Two hundred and fourteen patients were included, 134 female and 80 males. Median Breslow thickness was 0.74 mm (0.7 mm female and 0.8 mm male). Overall 5-year survival was 88% (90% female and 85% male). Discussion. Melanoma incidence in Buckinghamshire is in keeping with published data. Basic demographics details concur with classic melanoma distribution and more recent trends, with increased percentage of superficial spreading and thin melanomas, leading to improved survival are reflected.