Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Thrombophilia testing has limited usefulness in clinical decision-making and should be used selectively.

Management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes evaluation for hypercoagulable state, especially if the VTE occurs in young patients, is recurrent, or is associated with a positive family history. These laboratory tests are costly, and surprisingly, there is little evidence showing that testing leads to improved clinical outcomes. Evidence based on observational prospective studies suggests that optimal duration of anticoagulation should be based on clinical risks resulting in VTE, such as transient, permanent, and idiopathic or unprovoked risks, and less on abnormal thrombophilia values. Thrombophilia screening is important in a subgroup of clinical scenarios, such as when there is clinical suspicion of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, heparin resistance, or warfarin necrosis; with thrombosis occurring in unusual sites (such as mesenteric or cerebral deep venous thrombosis); and for pregnant women or those seeking pregnancy or considering estrogen-based agents. Thrombophilia screening is not likely to be helpful in most cases of first-time unprovoked VTE in the setting of transient risks, active malignant disease, deep venous thrombosis of upper extremity veins or from central lines, two or more VTEs, or arterial thrombosis with pre-existing atherosclerotic risk factors. The desire by both patient and physician for a scientific explanation of the clotting event may alone lead to testing, and if so, it should be with the understanding that an abnormal test result will likely not change management, and normal results do not accurately exclude a thrombophilic defect because there are likely factors yet to be discovered. Such false assumptions may lead to shorter durations of treatment than are optimal.

Successful adoptive transfer and in vivo expansion of human haploidentical NK cells in patients with cancer.

We previously demonstrated that autologous natural killer (NK)-cell therapy after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is safe but does not provide an antitumor effect. We hypothesize that this is due to a lack of NK-cell inhibitory receptor mismatching with autologous tumor cells, which may be overcome by allogeneic NK-cell infusions. Here, we test haploidentical, related-donor NK-cell infusions in a nontransplantation setting to determine safety and in vivo NK-cell expansion. Two lower intensity outpatient immune suppressive regimens were tested: (1) low-dose cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone and (2) fludarabine. A higher intensity inpatient regimen of high-dose cyclophosphamide and fludarabine (Hi-Cy/Flu) was tested in patients with poor-prognosis acute myeloid leukemia (AML). All patients received subcutaneous interleukin 2 (IL-2) after infusions. Patients who received lower intensity regimens showed transient persistence but no in vivo expansion of donor cells. In contrast, infusions after the more intense Hi-Cy/Flu resulted in a marked rise in endogenous IL-15, expansion of donor NK cells, and induction of complete hematologic remission in 5 of 19 poor-prognosis patients with AML. These findings suggest that haploidentical NK cells can persist and expand in vivo and may have a role in the treatment of selected malignancies used alone or as an adjunct to HCT.