The treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the recent evidence around the treatment of infertility in patients with endometriosis. RECENT FINDINGS: The management of endometriosis associated infertility remains challenging. There have been an increasing number of prospective observational studies highlighting the role of surgery to enhance assisted conception amongst those with deep rectovaginal endometriosis. Further validation studies confirm the role of the endometriosis fertility index in prediction of reproductive outcomes after surgery, and confirm that it can be employed in counselling patients prior to surgery on their likelihood of spontaneous conception. Further randomized trials are required to establish the role of surgically treating superficial and deep endometriosis and both spontaneous and assisted conception outcomes. SUMMARY: Endometriosis continues to present challenges in counselling patients with regards to their fertility prospects. This article reviews the recent research findings that may assist in the management of patients with endometriosis associated infertility.

Nonsurgical management of adenomyosis: an overview of current evidence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Adenomyosis is a condition where endometrium-like tissue spreads within the myometrium. Although its prevalence in the general population is not exactly known, its clinical manifestations are well established and include pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea (painful periods), heavy menstrual bleeding and subfertility [1] . Adenomyosis often coexists with other gynaecological conditions, such as endometriosis or fibroids, and may cloud the clinical presentation [2] . The aim of this article is to review current noninterventional, nonsurgical management modalities and wherever possible offer information that allows women to make safe and informed choices regarding their treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies support that medical strategies, including the Mirena coil, Dienogest and GnRH antagonists, are efficient in improving adenomyosis-associated symptoms. High-quality evidence is scarce and is needed to properly counsel women with this condition. Future research should prioritize overall pain, menstrual bleeding, quality of life and live birth as primary outcomes and assess women with different grades of adenomyosis. SUMMARY: This review provides the most current evidence with regards to the nonsurgical management of adenomyosis. In light of the paucity and low quality of existing data, high-quality trials are needed to definitely determine the impact of conservative and medical treatment on the clinical management of adenomyosis.

Impact of Brain Metastases on Treatment Patterns and Outcomes With First-Line Durvalumab Plus Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage SCLC (CASPIAN): A Brief Report.

Introduction: In the phase 3 study involving the use of durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in untreated extensive-stage SCLC (CASPIAN study), first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone (p = 0.0047). We report exploratory subgroup analyses of treatment patterns and outcomes according to the presence of baseline brain or central nervous system metastases. Methods: Patients (WHO performance status 0 or 1), including those with asymptomatic or treated-and-stable brain metastases, were randomized to four cycles of durvalumab plus EP followed by maintenance durvalumab until progression or up to six cycles of EP and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation. Prespecified analyses of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in subgroups with or without brain metastases used unstratified-Cox proportional hazards models. The data cutoff was on January 27, 2020. Results: At baseline, 28 out of 268 patients (10.4%) in the durvalumab plus EP arm and 27 out of 269 patients (10.0%) in the EP arm had known brain metastases, of whom 3 of 28 (10.7%) and 4 of 27 (14.8%) had previous brain radiotherapy, respectively. Durvalumab plus EP (versus EP alone) prolonged OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) in patients with (0.79, 0.44-1.41) or without (0.76, 0.62-0.92) brain metastases, with similar PFS results (0.73, 0.42-1.29 and 0.80, 0.66-0.97, respectively). Among patients without brain metastases, similar proportions in each arm developed new brain lesions as part of their first progression (8.8% and 9.5%), although 8.3% in the EP arm received prophylactic cranial irradiation. Similar proportions in each arm received subsequent brain radiotherapy (20.5% and 21.2%), although more common in patients with than without baseline brain metastases (45.5% and 18.0%). Conclusions: The OS and PFS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP were maintained irrespective of the presence of brain metastases, further supporting its standard-of-care use.

Early predictions of response and survival from a tumor dynamics model in patients with recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with immunotherapy.

We developed and evaluated a method for making early predictions of best overall response (BOR) and overall survival at 6 months (OS6) in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy. This method combines machine learning with modeling of longitudinal tumor size data. We applied our method to data from durvalumab-exposed patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer. A fivefold cross-validation was used for model selection. Independent trial data, with various degrees of data truncation, were used for model validation. Mean classification error rates (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) from cross-validation were 5.99% (90% CI 2.98%-7.50%) for BOR and 19.8% (90% CI 15.8%-39.3%) for OS6. During model validation, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was preserved for BOR (0.97, 0.97, and 0.94) and OS6 (0.85, 0.84, and 0.82) at 24, 18, and 12 weeks, respectively. These results suggest our method predicts trial outcomes accurately from early data and could be used to aid drug development.

Candidate biomarkers of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in ovarian cancer beyond the BRCA genes.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib (Lynparza™) is a PARP inhibitor approved for advanced BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) ovarian cancer. PARP inhibitors may benefit patients whose tumours are dysfunctional in DNA repair mechanisms unrelated to BRCA1/2. We report exploratory analyses, including the long-term outcome of candidate biomarkers of sensitivity to olaparib in BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) tumours. METHODS: Tumour samples from an olaparib maintenance monotherapy trial (Study 19, D0810C00019; NCT00753545) were analysed. Analyses included classification of mutations in genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR), BRCA1 promoter methylation status, measurement of BRCA1 protein and Myriad HRD score. RESULTS: Patients with BRCAm tumours gained most benefit from olaparib; a similar treatment benefit was also observed in 21/95 patients whose tumours were BRCAwt but had loss-of-function HRR mutations compared to patients with no detectable HRR mutations (58/95). A higher median Myriad MyChoice® HRD score was observed in BRCAm and BRCAwt tumours with BRCA1 methylation. Patients without BRCAm tumours derived benefit from olaparib treatment vs placebo although to a lesser extent than BRCAm patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cancer patients with tumours harbouring loss-of-function mutations in HRR genes other than BRCA1/2 may constitute a small, molecularly identifiable and clinically relevant population who derive treatment benefit from olaparib similar to patients with BRCAm.

Long-term efficacy, tolerability and overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer treated with maintenance olaparib capsules following response to chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: In Study 19, maintenance monotherapy with olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival vs placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: Study 19 was a randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial enrolling 265 patients who had received at least two platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and were in complete or partial response to their most recent regimen. Patients were randomised to olaparib (capsules; 400 mg bid) or placebo. We present long-term safety and final mature overall survival (OS; 79% maturity) data, from the last data cut-off (9 May 2016). RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (24%) received maintenance olaparib for over 2 years; 15 (11%) did so for over 6 years. No new tolerability signals were identified with long-term treatment and adverse events were generally low grade. The incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events was low (6%). An apparent OS advantage was observed with olaparib vs placebo (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.55‒0.95, P = 0.02138) irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status, although the predefined threshold for statistical significance was not met. CONCLUSIONS: Study 19 showed a favourable final OS result irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and unprecedented long-term benefit with maintenance olaparib for a subset of platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients.

Pharmacokinetic Effects and Safety of Olaparib Administered with Endocrine Therapy: A Phase I Study in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumours.

INTRODUCTION: The PARP inhibitor olaparib is efficacious as monotherapy and has potential application in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of breast cancer. This phase I study assessed the safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of olaparib combined with tamoxifen, anastrozole or letrozole in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: During part A, PK profiles were assessed in three consecutive treatment periods: (1) olaparib (tablet) 300 mg bid, days 1-5 followed by a 4-day washout; (2) cohort 1, tamoxifen 60 mg loading dose qd days 10-13, 20 mg qd days 14-26; cohort 2, anastrozole 1 mg qd days 10-19; cohort 3, letrozole 2.5 mg qd days 10-38; (3) as for period 2, with concomitant olaparib 300 mg bid for 5 days. Patients could then enter part B and receive olaparib monotherapy (300 mg bid continuously). Safety was assessed in parts A and B until 12 months after the last patient entered part B. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (20.3% with breast cancer) received treatment in part A; 72 completed part A and 69 entered part B. Anastrozole and letrozole had no effect on the PK profile of olaparib and vice versa. Co-administration with tamoxifen produced a modest decrease in exposure to olaparib [geometric least-squares mean (GLSmean) Cmax,ss and AUC0-τ decreased by 20% (90% CI 0.71-0.90) and 27% (0.63-0.84), respectively]. Exposure to tamoxifen was slightly increased when combined with olaparib [GLSmean Cmax,ss and AUC0-τ increased by 13% (1.06-1.22) and 16% (1.11-1.21), respectively]; however, the 90% CI fell within the 0.7-1.43 boundary and there were no changes in exposure to tamoxifen metabolites. The safety profile for olaparib alone and in combination with the antihormonal therapies was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of olaparib and either anastrozole, letrozole or tamoxifen was generally well tolerated, with no clinically relevant PK interactions identified. FUNDING: AstraZeneca. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02093351.

Biological and clinical evidence for somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 as predictive markers for olaparib response in high-grade serous ovarian cancers in the maintenance setting.

To gain a better understanding of the role of somatic mutations in olaparib response, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of BRCA1 and BRCA2 was performed as part of a planned retrospective analysis of tumors from a randomized, double-blind, Phase II trial (Study 19; D0810C00019; NCT00753545) in 265 patients with platinum-sensitive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BRCA1/2 loss-of-function mutations were found in 55% (114/209) of tumors, were mutually exclusive, and demonstrated high concordance with Sanger-sequenced germline mutations in matched blood samples, confirming the accuracy (97%) of tumor BRCA1/2 NGS testing. Additionally, NGS identified somatic mutations absent from germline testing in 10% (20/209) of the patients. Somatic mutations had >80% biallelic inactivation frequency and were predominantly clonal, suggesting that BRCA1/2 loss occurs early in the development of these cancers. Clinical outcomes between placebo- and olaparib-treated patients with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations were similar to those with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, indicating that patients with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations benefit from treatment with olaparib.

Quality of life during olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance monotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib significantly prolongs progression-free survival over placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer, with greatest benefit seen in patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm). Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important during maintenance therapy; we evaluated the effect of olaparib on HRQoL in this Phase II trial (NCT00753545, Study 19). METHODS: Patients received olaparib 400 mg b.i.d. (capsules) or placebo until progression. Patient-reported HRQoL and disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the FACT-Ovarian (FACT-O) questionnaire (completed at baseline and every 28 days until progression), the FACT/NCCN Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). TOI of the FACT-O was the primary measure. RESULTS: Overall, 265 women were randomised to maintenance olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). Compliance for HRQoL assessment was high (∼80% over time). Most patients in both arms reported a best response of 'no change' on TOI (81%) and other HRQoL measures. There were no statistically significant differences in time to worsening or improvement rates of TOI, FOSI and FACT-O scores in the overall, BRCAm and germline BRCAm populations. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance treatment with olaparib was well tolerated and had no adverse impact on HRQoL in this study of patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer who had responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy (partial or complete response). Interpretation of the HRQoL results in this population may differ from patients who have not responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy.

Overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy: an updated analysis from a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly improves progression-free survival versus placebo. We assessed the effect of maintenance olaparib on overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, including those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (BRCAm). METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial involving 82 sites across 16 countries, patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more courses of platinum-based chemotherapy and had responded to their latest regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to receive oral maintenance olaparib (as capsules; 400 mg twice a day) or a matching placebo by an interactive voice response system. Patients were stratified by ancestry, time to progression on penultimate platinum, and response to most recent platinum. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment by the use of unique identifiers generated during randomisation. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival. In this updated analysis, we present data for overall survival, a secondary endpoint, from the third data analysis after more than 5 years' follow-up (intention-to-treat population). We did the updated overall survival analysis, described in this Article at 77% data maturity, using a two-sided α of 0·95%. As the study was not powered to assess overall survival, this analysis should be regarded as descriptive and the p values are nominal. We analysed randomly assigned patients for overall survival and all patients who received at least one dose of treatment for safety. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 265 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). 136 patients had deleterious BRCAm. The data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 30, 2015. An overall survival advantage was seen with maintenance olaparib versus placebo in all patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·55-0·96]; nominal p=0·025, which did not meet the required threshold for statistical significance [p<0·0095]; median overall survival was 29·8 months [95% CI 26·9-35·7] for those treated with olaparib vs 27·8 months [24·9-33·7] for those treated with placebo), and in patients with BRCAm (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·41-0·94] nominal p=0·025; 34·9 months [95% CI 29·2-54·6] vs 30·2 months [23·1-40·7]). The overall survival data in patients with BRCA wild-type were HR 0·83 (95% CI 0·55-1·24, nominal p=0·37; 24·5 months [19·8-35·0] for those treated with olaparib vs 26·6 months [23·1-32·5] for those treated with placebo). 11 (15%) of 74 patients with BRCAm received maintenance olaparib for 5 years or more. Overall, common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups were fatigue (11 [8%] of 136 patients vs four [3%] of 128) and anaemia (eight [6%] vs one [1%]). 30 (22%) of 136 patients in the olaparib group and 11 (9%) of 128 patients in the placebo group reported serious adverse events. In patients treated for 2 years or more, adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups included low-grade nausea (24 [75%] of 32 patients vs two [40%] of five), fatigue (18 [56%] of 32 vs two [40%] of five), vomiting (12 [38%] of 32 vs zero), and anaemia (eight [25%] of 32 vs one [20%] of five); generally, events were initially reported during the first 2 years of treatment. INTERPRETATION: Despite not reaching statistical significance, patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy after platinum-based chemotherapy appeared to have longer overall survival, supporting the reported progression-free survival benefit. Clinically useful long-term exposure to olaparib was seen with no new safety signals. Taken together, these data support both the long-term clinical benefit and tolerability of maintenance olaparib in patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed serous ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation: Overall survival adjusted for postprogression poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance treatment with the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) in Study 19 (study number, D0810C00019; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00753545) significantly improved progression-free survival in comparison with a placebo for patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm), but an interim analysis revealed no statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. However, 23% of the patients receiving the placebo switched to a PARP inhibitor after progression. To investigate whether this had a confounding effect on OS, this article reports an exploratory post hoc analysis that excluded all patients from sites where 1 or more placebo patients received postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment. METHODS: In Study 19, 136 of the 265 patients receiving olaparib or a placebo had a BRCAm. Sixteen patients treated at 11 of the 82 investigational sites received a PARP inhibitor after progression; these sites were excluded from this analysis, and 97 BRCAm patients at 50 sites were included. OS was assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model analogous to the primary study analysis. A supporting rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model analysis was undertaken for all 136 BRCAm patients. RESULTS: The OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.97) for the 97 BRCAm patients, whereas for the interim OS analysis with all 136 BRCAm patients, it was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.45-1.17). The supportive RPSFT analysis HR was approximately 0.66. CONCLUSIONS: The numerical improvement in the OS HR suggests that in Study 19, postprogression PARP inhibitor treatment had a confounding influence on the interim OS analysis for BRCAm patients. There is a degree of uncertainty due to the small sample size and the lack of data maturity. Cancer 2016;122:1844-52. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Data Science Solution to Event Prediction in Outsourced Clinical Trial Models.

Late phase clinical trials are regularly outsourced to a Contract Research Organisation (CRO) while the risk and accountability remain within the sponsor company. Many statistical tasks are delivered by the CRO and later revalidated by the sponsor. Here, we report a technological approach to standardised event prediction. We have built a dynamic web application around an R-package with the aim of delivering reliable event predictions, simplifying communication and increasing trust between the CRO and the in-house statisticians via transparency. Short learning curve, interactivity, reproducibility and data diagnostics are key here. The current implementation is motivated by time-to-event prediction in oncology. We demonstrate a clear benefit of standardisation for both parties. The tool can be used for exploration, communication, sensitivity analysis and generating standard reports. At this point we wish to present this tool and share some of the insights we have gained during the development.

Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: a preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to explore the hypothesis that olaparib is most likely to benefit patients with a BRCA mutation. METHODS: We present data from the second interim analysis of overall survival and a retrospective, preplanned analysis of data by BRCA mutation status from our randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study that assessed maintenance treatment with olaparib 400 mg twice daily (capsules) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more platinum-based regimens and who had a partial or complete response to their most recent platinum-based regimen. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system, stratified by time to progression on penultimate platinum-based regimen, response to the most recent platinum-based regimen before randomisation, and ethnic descent. The primary endpoint was PFS, analysed for the overall population and by BRCA status. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 136 patients were assigned to olaparib and 129 to placebo. BRCA status was known for 131 (96%) patients in the olaparib group versus 123 (95%) in the placebo group, of whom 74 (56%) versus 62 (50%) had a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or tumour BRCA mutation. Of patients with a BRCA mutation, median PFS was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (11·2 months [95% CI 8·3-not calculable] vs 4·3 months [3·0-5·4]; HR 0·18 [0·10-0·31]; p<0·0001); similar findings were noted for patients with wild-type BRCA, although the difference between groups was lower (7·4 months [5·5-10·3] vs 5·5 months [3·7-5·6]; HR 0·54 [0·34-0·85]; p=0·0075). At the second interim analysis of overall survival (58% maturity), overall survival did not significantly differ between the groups (HR 0·88 [95% CI 0·64-1·21]; p=0·44); similar findings were noted for patients with mutated BRCA (HR 0·73 [0·45-1·17]; p=0·19) and wild-type BRCA (HR 0·99 [0·63-1·55]; p=0·96). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib group were fatigue (in ten [7%] patients in the olaparib group vs four [3%] in the placebo group) and anaemia (seven [5%] vs one [<1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 25 (18%) patients who received olaparib and 11 (9%) who received placebo. Tolerability was similar in patients with mutated BRCA and the overall population. INTERPRETATION: These results support the hypothesis that patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation have the greatest likelihood of benefiting from olaparib treatment. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Correlation of lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme profile with outcome in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab or cediranib: Retrospective analysis of the HORIZON I study.

INTRODUCTION: Bevacizumab improves outcome for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) when added to chemotherapy. The HORIZON I trial resulted in similar outcome with bevacizumab or cediranib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor, as treatment of advanced CRC. The spectrum of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) isoenzyme expression was examined in serum samples of HORIZON I participants to identify biomarkers predictive of efficacy of VEGF pathway inhibitors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total LDH levels, as well as LDH isoenzyme levels in frozen baseline serum samples, were retrospectively evaluated. Total LDH serum levels measured during the study, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were available from the HORIZON I study data. RESULTS: Total LDH levels measured in the frozen serum samples correlated with those measured in fresh samples. The expected reciprocal correlation was found between hypoxic and oxic LDH isoenzymes. High total LDH correlated with shorter PFS, and high hypoxia-related LDH isoenzymes correlated with shorter PFS and OS. The difference in outcome of the cediranib-treated patients vs. those treated with bevacizumab was not substantially different in the various LDH isoform expression subgroups. In patients with a hypoxic LDH pattern of expression, there was a nonsignificant trend of better outcome in cediranib-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of total LDH and its isoforms in frozen serum samples is feasible. High total LDH and high hypoxic LDH isoenzymes were associated with poor prognosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the predictive value of LDH isoenzyme expression pattern for VEGF-pathway inhibition efficacy.

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

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