Final Results for Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The 5-year results of this trial showed that adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in longer relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage III melanoma. Longer-term data were needed, including data regarding overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned 870 patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations to receive 12 months of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Here, we report the final results of this trial, including results for overall survival, melanoma-specific survival, relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 8.33 years for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 6.87 years for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo, although the benefit was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06 by stratified log-rank test). A consistent survival benefit was seen across several prespecified subgroups, including the 792 patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.96). Relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.63), as did distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.71). No new safety signals were reported, a finding consistent with previous trial reports. CONCLUSIONS: After nearly 10 years of follow-up, adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was associated with better relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with resected stage III melanoma. The analysis of overall survival showed that the risk of death was 20% lower with combination therapy than with placebo, but the benefit was not significant. Among patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation, the results suggest that the risk of death was 25% lower with combination therapy. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.).

Plain language summary of the CheckMate 76K study results: nivolumab given after stage 2B/2C melanoma is removed by surgery.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 76K clinical study published online in Nature Medicine in October 2023. The study goal was to learn whether nivolumab works as an adjuvant therapy (that is, helps to keep cancer from coming back when it is given after surgery) for stage 2 melanoma (skin cancer) that has not spread to other parts of the body. Nivolumab is an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system so it can destroy cancer cells. In melanoma, staging describes the severity of the cancer. Melanoma staging ranges from 0 (very thin and confined to the upper layer of the skin) to 4 (spread to distant parts of the body), with earlier stages removed by surgery. The people in this study had stage 2 melanoma that had not spread to the lymph nodes or other organs in the body. HOW WAS THE STUDY DESIGNED?: People 12 years and older with stage 2 melanoma that had not spread and had been removed by surgery were included in CheckMate 76K. People were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (526 patients) or placebo (264 patients). A placebo resembles the test medicine but does not contain any active medicines. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab lived longer without their cancer returning and/or spreading to other parts of their bodies (compared with placebo) and if nivolumab was well tolerated. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people who received nivolumab were 58% less likely to have their cancer return and 53% less likely of having their cancer spread to distant parts of their body, compared with placebo. These reductions in risk with nivolumab were seen in different subgroups of people with a range of characteristics, and regardless of how deep the melanoma had gone into the skin. People taking nivolumab had more side effects than those taking placebo, but most were mild to moderate and manageable. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Results from CheckMate 76K support the benefit of using nivolumab as a treatment option for people with stage 2 melanoma post-surgery.

Five-Year Analysis of Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In the previously reported primary analysis of this phase 3 trial, 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in significantly longer relapse-free survival than placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. To confirm the stability of the relapse-free survival benefit, longer-term data were needed. METHODS: We randomly assigned 870 patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Here, we report 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis as the site of the first relapse. Overall survival was not analyzed, since the required number of events to trigger the final overall survival analysis had not been reached. RESULTS: The minimum duration of follow-up was 59 months (median patient follow-up, 60 months for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo). At 5 years, the percentage of patients who were alive without relapse was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48 to 58) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 36% (95% CI, 32 to 41) with placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.61). The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis was 65% (95% CI, 61 to 71) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 54% (95% CI, 49 to 60) with placebo (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.70). No clinically meaningful between-group difference in the incidence or severity of serious adverse events was reported during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In the 5-year follow-up of a phase 3 trial involving patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, 12 months of adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a longer duration of survival without relapse or distant metastasis than placebo with no apparent long-term toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.).

Impact of systemic therapies in metastatic melanoma of unknown primary: A study from MELBASE, a French multicentric prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes of advanced melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) in the era of novel therapies have been scarcely studied. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in patients with advanced MUP compared to patients with stage-matched melanoma of known cutaneous primary (cMKP). METHODS: Based on the nationwide MelBase prospective database, this study included advanced melanoma patients treated from March 2013 to June 2021 with first-line immunotherapies, targeted therapies, or chemotherapy. Co-primary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Secondary outcome was treatment-related toxicities. Multivariate and propensity score analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 1882 patients, 265 (14.1%) had advanced MUP. Patients with advanced MUP displayed more often unfavorable initial prognostic factors than those with cMKP. Progression-free and overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (P = .73 and P = .93, respectively), as well as treatment-related toxicity rate and severity, regardless of treatment type. LIMITATIONS: No record of standard diagnostic criteria of MUP used in the participating centers. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with MUP had less favorable baseline prognostic factors, they benefited from the novel therapies as much as those with cMKP. They should be managed according to similar strategies.

Risk of irAEs in patients with autoimmune diseases treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors for stage III or IV melanoma: results from a matched case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (pAID) treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for stage III or IV melanoma. METHODS: Case-control study performed on a French multicentric prospective cohort of patients with melanoma, matched for irAE risk factors and oncological staging. Risk of irAE was assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS: 110 patients with pAID were included and matched with 330 controls, from March 2013 to October 2020. Over a median follow-up period of 7.2 months for cases and 6.9 months for controls, the ORs of developing all-grade and grade ≥3 irAEs among cases compared with controls were 1.91 (95% CI (1.56 to 2.27)) and 1.44 (95% CI (1.08 to 1.82)), respectively. Patients with pAID had an increased risk of multiple irAEs (OR 1.46, 95% CI (1.15 to 2.67)) and a shorter time to irAE onset. In contrast, there were no difference in irAE-related mortality nor in the rate of treatment discontinuation, and a landmark analysis revealed a better survival at 24 months among cases (p=0.02). Thirty per cent of cases experienced a pAID flare during follow-up, and baseline immunosuppression did not prevent irAE occurrence. Last, we report associations between the pAID clinical subsets and organ-specific irAEs. CONCLUSION: In our study, patients with pAID were at greater risk of all-grade, severe and multiple irAEs, yet had a better 24-month survival than controls. Thus, patients with pAID should be eligible for ICI therapy but benefit from a close monitoring for irAE occurrence, especially during the first months of therapy.

Late-onset adverse events of anti-PD1 therapy in melanoma patients: An observational study from MELBASE, a nationwide prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Late-onset adverse events (AEs) of anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD1) antibodies have not been systematically described. OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to evaluate late-onset AEs in melanoma patients treated with anti-PD1 administered for at least 2 years in a real-life setting. METHODS: Patients were screened from MelBase, a French multicentric biobank dedicated to the prospective follow up of unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. The study included 119 patients who received anti-PD1 during at least 2 years from January 2013 to November 2019. Median follow up was 41.7 months (range, 25.2-57.5 months). Fifty-three patients received nivolumab and 66 patients received pembrolizumab. RESULTS: AEs occurred in 99 patients (83%) with a median time of 13.3 months (range, 0-53.9 months), including severe AEs (grade 3 or 4) in 30 patients (30%). Late-onset AEs, mostly grades 1 or 2, occurred in 51 (43%) patients and led to 5 (4%) hospitalizations, of which 4 were severe. Factors associated with late-onset AEs in multivariate analysis were early-onset AEs (within the first 2 years of treatment) and treatment duration (P = .02 and P = .03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate the possibility of late-onset AEs occurring after 2 years of anti-PD1 therapy. Late-onset AEs appear frequently and were mostly mild or moderate. Early-onset AEs and prolonged anti-PD1 treatment may increase the risk of late-onset AEs.

Effectiveness and safety of nivolumab in patients with advanced melanoma: A multicenter, observational study.

This retrospective observational study aimed to determine the effectiveness, safety and patterns of the use of nivolumab in patients with advanced melanoma in real-world clinical practice in France using data from a Temporary Authorization for Use Program (ATU). Data were collected from patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma enrolled in a French national database (Réseau pour la Recherche et l'Investigation Clinique sur le Mélanome: Ric-Mel) and treated with nivolumab during the ATU program (12 September 2014 to 31 August 2015). The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the effect of patient characteristics on clinical response and overall survival (OS). Among 400 included patients (median age 66 years), the majority (83%) received nivolumab as second- or subsequent-line therapy. The median durations of progression-free survival and OS were 3.3 and 14.1 months, respectively, and 31.6% of patients achieved an objective response with a median duration of 20.1 months (range: 0-34.7). The safety profile of nivolumab was manageable and consistent with those of previous clinical trials, with an incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events of 13.8%. The safety and effectiveness of nivolumab in patients with advanced melanoma in real-world clinical practice in France were in line with the data reported in the Phase 3 trials CheckMate 066 and 037 of nivolumab in this patient population.

Myasthenia Gravis Lambert-Eaton overlap syndrome induced by nivolumab in a metastatic melanoma patient.

INTRODUCTION: Myasthenia gravis (MG) Lambert-Eaton (LE) overlap syndrome is a rare condition. Here, we describe the first case of MG-LE overlap syndrome revealed by the anti-programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, nivolumab, in a patient treated for metastatic melanoma. CASE: Three months after receiving nivolumab and 1 month after brain metastasis radiotherapy, our patient developed generalized fatigue with intermittent ptosis and swallowing difficulty suggesting a myasthenic syndrome. Electromyogram findings, anti-acetylcholine receptor, and anti-calcium channel antibodies levels were consistent with an immune-related myasthenic syndrome with specific features for both MG and LE syndromes. Immunotherapy with nivolumab was stopped. Patient was treated with systemic immunosuppressive and anti-cholinesterase drugs, with remarkable improvement of his neurological symptoms. Prolonged partial remission was obtained for his metastatic melanoma without need for a third-line treatment. Two years later, a relapse of hismyasthenic symptoms was observed along with new neurological symptoms related to brain radiation necrosis. CONCLUSION: We describe the first case of MG-LE overlap syndrome diagnosed after anti-PD1 immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, which appeared after radiation therapy and then relapsed after brain radiation necrosis. We hypothesized a role for brain inflammation as a trigger for MG-LE onset. Neuro-muscular junctions disease induced or revealed by checkpoint inhibitors can be challenging and requires long-term follow-up.

Quality-of-life assessment in French patients with metastatic melanoma in real life.

BACKGROUND: Significant progress was recently observed in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM). With >50% of patients now reaching a second line of treatment and a significant improvement in the survival rate, an assessment of quality of life (QoL) during the whole course of the disease becomes necessary. The objective of this study was to describe the QoL of patients with MM in France, from their diagnosis of advanced disease to their death, in real life. METHODS: QoL data were collected through MelBase, a prospective, French, multicentric cohort dedicated to the follow-up of adults with MM. QoL was assessed using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment (FACT)-Melanoma questionnaire at the time of study inclusion, every 3 months, and at the time of each treatment change until death. To assess longitudinal changes from baseline to death, mixed-effect models for repeated-measures analyses were used to control for baseline covariates. RESULTS: QoL was assessed in 1435 patients who were included in the study between 2013 and 2018. The median follow-up was 9.4 months, and 47% of patients died during follow-up. During first-line treatment, the model-based, mean utility score was 0.830 (95% CI, 0.818-0.843), the mean FACT-General score was 77.22 (95% CI, 76.23-78.22), and the mean FACT-Melanoma score was 129.46 (95% CI, 128.02-130.90). At the time of a change in treatment line, there was a decrease of -0.027 (95% CI, -0.03, -0.02) in the utility score, -1.82 (95% CI, -1.88, -1.76) in the FACT-General score, and -2.98 (95% CI, -3.05, -2.91) in the FACT-Melanoma score compared with first-line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the MelBase cohort, the QoL among patients with MM seems to be fairly stable over the whole disease course, although a small but significant decrease at time therapy is changed is observed.

Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III BRAF-Mutated Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib plus the MEK inhibitor trametinib improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. We sought to determine whether adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib would improve outcomes in patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 870 patients with completely resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive oral dabrafenib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib at a dose of 2 mg once daily (combination therapy, 438 patients) or two matched placebo tablets (432 patients) for 12 months. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, freedom from relapse, and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the estimated 3-year rate of relapse-free survival was 58% in the combination-therapy group and 39% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.58; P<0.001). The 3-year overall survival rate was 86% in the combination-therapy group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.79; P=0.0006), but this level of improvement did not cross the prespecified interim analysis boundary of P=0.000019. Rates of distant metastasis-free survival and freedom from relapse were also higher in the combination-therapy group than in the placebo group. The safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib was consistent with that observed with the combination in patients with metastatic melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant use of combination therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a significantly lower risk of recurrence in patients with stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations than the adjuvant use of placebo and was not associated with new toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01682083 ; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15 .).

Patient-reported outcomes in patients with resected, high-risk melanoma with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations treated with adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib (COMBI-AD): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 COMBI-AD study, patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations received adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib or placebo. The primary analysis showed that dabrafenib plus trametinib significantly improved relapse-free survival at 3 years. These results led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations. Here, we report the patient-reported outcomes from COMBI-AD. METHODS: COMBI-AD was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done at 169 sites in 25 countries. Study participants were aged 18 years or older and had complete resection of stage IIIA (lymph node metastases >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma as per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria, with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system, stratified by mutation type and disease stage, to receive oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) or matching placebos for 12 months. Patients, physicians, and the investigators who analysed the data were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival, reported elsewhere. Health-related quality of life, reported here, was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, and was assessed with the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in the intention-to-treat population. We used a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis to assess differences in health-related quality of life between groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01682083. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer recruiting participants. FINDINGS: Between Jan 31, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 870 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=438) or matching placebos (n=432). Data were collected until the data cutoff for analyses of the primary endpoint (June 30, 2017). The median follow-up was 34 months (IQR 28-39) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 33 months (20·5-39) in the placebo group. During the 12-month treatment phase, there were no significant or clinically meaningful changes from baseline between groups in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) or utility scores. During treatment, there were no clinically meaningful differences in VAS scores or utility scores in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group between patients who did and did not experience the most common adverse events. During long-term follow-up (range 15-48 months), VAS and utility scores were similar between groups and did not differ from baseline scores. At recurrence, there were significant decreases in VAS scores in both the dabrafenib plus trametinib group (mean change -6·02, SD 20·57; p=0·0032) and the placebo group (-6·84, 20·86; p<0·0001); the mean change in utility score also differed significantly at recurrence for both groups (dabrafenib plus trametinib -0·0626, 0·1911, p<0·0001; placebo -0·0748, 0·2182, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: These findings show that dabrafenib plus trametinib did not affect patient-reported outcome scores during or after adjuvant treatment, and suggest that preventing or delaying relapse with adjuvant therapy could be beneficial in this setting. FUNDING: Novartis.

Adverse events need for hospitalization and systemic immunosuppression in very elderly patients (over 80 years) treated with ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors are first-line therapies in melanoma, but safety in older adults has not yet been assessed. Ipilimumab improves survival, but immunologic-related adverse events (AEs) can be threatening, and its use in elderly people raises questions. AIM: To assess safety in a cohort of very elderly patients treated with ipilimumab. METHODS: All patients over 80 years treated with ipilimumab for melanoma were retrospectively included. AE occurrence, management, and outcome, as well as response rate at week 16 and overall survival were recorded, and compared to data for a group of younger patients treated in our institution during the same period. RESULTS: In the elderly group, 23 patients were included with a median age of 82 years [80-90]. AEs amounting to 23 occurred in 15 patients (65%) with 5 grade 3 (22%) and 1 grade 5 (opportunistic infection) AEs. Corticosteroids were required for five (22%) patients, additive immunosuppressive therapy for two, hospitalization for four, and definitive interruption of ipilimumab for three. Median overall survival was 14 months. In the younger group, 29 patients were included with a median age of 58 years. AEs occurred in 15/29 (52%) with 4 grade 3 (19%) and 1 grade 4 (7%). Median OS was 17 months. CONCLUSION: Serious AEs occurred in 80 + adults at the same rate as observed in our younger patients and as previously reported in younger populations. Ipilimumab can be an option in elderly patients, as patients may benefit from therapy and safety seems to be manageable.

Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib alone improved progression-free survival compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma in the COLUMBUS trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint of overall survival. METHODS: COLUMBUS was a two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma, BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of interactive response technology to receive oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). Randomisation was stratified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, ECOG performance status, and BRAF mutation status. The primary outcome of the trial, progression-free survival with encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib, was reported previously. Here we present the prespecified interim overall survival analysis. Efficacy analyses were by intent to treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Part 2 of the study was initiated at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration to better understand the contribution of binimetinib to the combination therapy by comparing encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily with encorafenib 300 mg once daily alone. Results of part 2 will be published separately. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive encorafenib plus binimetinib (n=192), encorafenib (n=194), or vemurafenib (n=191). Median follow-up for overall survival was 36·8 months (95% CI 35·9-37·5). Median overall survival was 33·6 months (95% CI 24·4-39·2) with encorafenib plus binimetinib and 16·9 months (14·0-24·5) with vemurafenib (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·47-0·79]; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events did not change substantially from the first report; those seen in more than 5% of patients treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (14 [7%]), and hypertension (12 [6%]); those seen with encorafenib alone were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and with vemurafenib the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). One death in the combination treatment group was considered by the investigator to be possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib provided clinically meaningful efficacy with good tolerability as shown by improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with vemurafenib. These data suggest that the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is likely to become an important therapeutic option in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. METHODS: COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8-16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0-18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6-8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41-0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator. INTERPRETATION: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Clinical, histological and molecular predictors of metastatic melanoma responses to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) immunotherapy for advanced melanoma is currently not restricted by any biomarker assessment. Determination of programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1)-expression status is technically challenging and is not mandatory, because negative tumours also achieve therapeutic responses. However, reproducible biomarkers predictive of a response to anti-PD-1 therapy could contribute to improving therapeutic decision-making. METHODS: This retrospective study on 70 metastatic melanoma patients was undertaken to evaluate the relationships between clinical, histological, immunohistochemical and/or molecular criteria, and the 6-month objective response rate. RESULTS: Better objective response rates were associated with metachronous metastases (P = 0.04), PD-L1 tumour- and/or immune-cell status (P = 0.01), CD163+ histiocytes at advancing edges (P = 0.009) of primary melanomas and NRAS mutation (P = 0.019). Moreover, CD163+ histiocytes at advancing edges (P = 0.04) were associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS), and metachronous metastases with longer overall survival (P = 0.02) and PFS (P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Combining these reproducible biomarkers could help improve therapeutic decision-making for patients with progressive disease.

Health-related quality of life impact of cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in patients with advanced or metastatic BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In the coBRIM study, cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (C+V) significantly improved survival outcomes vs placebo and vemurafenib (P+V) in patients with advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutated melanoma. An analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) from coBRIM is reported. METHODS: Patients completing the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline and ⩾1 time point thereafter constituted the analysis population. Change from baseline ⩾10 points was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Mean baseline scores for all QLQ-C30 domains were similar between arms. Most on-treatment scores for QLQ-C30 domains were also comparable between arms. A transient deterioration in role function in cycle 1 day 15 (C1D15; -14.7 points) in the P+V arm and improvement in insomnia in the C+V arm at C2D15 (-12.4 points) was observed. Among patients who experienced a ⩾10-point change from baseline (responders), between-group differences were greatest for insomnia (16%), social functioning (10%), fatigue (9%) and pain (7%), all favouring C+V. Diarrhoea, photosensitivity reaction, pyrexia, and rash did not meaningfully affect global health status (GHS). Serous retinopathy was associated with a transient decrease in GHS at C1D15 assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutated melanoma, treatment with C+V maintained HRQOL compared with P+V, with superior efficacy.

Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS: We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

Rheumatic disorders associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer-clinical aspects and relationship with tumour response: a single-centre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence and type of rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as well as the correlation with tumour response. METHODS: This was a single-centre prospective observational study including all cancer patients receiving ICIs. The occurrence of irAEs and tumour response was assessed on a regular basis. Patients who experienced musculoskeletal symptoms were referred to the department of rheumatology for clinical evaluation and management. RESULTS: From September 2015 to May 2017, 524 patients received ICIs and 35 were referred to the department of rheumatology (6.6%). All but one of the rheumatic irAEs occurred with anti-programmed cell death protein 1(PD-1)/PD-1 ligand 1(PD-L1) antibodies, with a median exposure time of 70 days. There were two distinct clinical presentations: (1) inflammatory arthritis (3.8%) mimicking either rheumatoid arthritis (n=7), polymyalgia rheumatica (n=11) or psoriatic arthritis (n=2) and (2) non-inflammatory musculoskeletal conditions (2.8%; n=15). One patient with rheumatoid arthritis was anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positive. Nineteen patients required glucocorticoids, and methotrexate was started in two patients. Non-inflammatory disorders were managed with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics and/or physiotherapy. ICI treatment was pursued in all but one patient. Patients with rheumatic irAEs had a higher tumour response rate compared with patients without irAEs (85.7% vs 35.3%; P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Since ICIs are used with increasing frequency, knowledge of rheumatic irAEs and their management is of major interest. All patients were responsive either to low-to-moderate doses of prednisone or symptomatic therapies and did not require ICI discontinuation. Furthermore, tumour response was significantly higher in patients who experienced rheumatic irAEs.

Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma. METHODS: NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance status, and previous immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one study drug dose and one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01763164 and with EudraCT, number 2012-003593-51. FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4-4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8-3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5-1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. INTERPRETATION: Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. FUNDING: Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.