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

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

Cu and Zn promoted Al-fumarate metal organic frameworks for electrocatalytic CO2 reduction.

Metal organic frameworks (MOFs) are attractive materials to generate multifunctional catalysts for the electrocatalytic reduction of CO2 to hydrocarbons. Here we report the synthesis of Cu and Zn modified Al-fumarate (Al-fum) MOFs, in which Zn promotes the selective reduction of CO2 to CO and Cu promotes CO reduction to oxygenates and hydrocarbons in an electrocatalytic cascade. Cu and Zn nanoparticles (NPs) were introduced to the Al-fum MOF by a double solvent method to promote in-pore metal deposition, and the resulting reduced Cu-Zn@Al-fum drop-cast on a hydrophobic gas diffusion electrode for electrochemical study. Cu-Zn@Al-fum is active for CO2 electroreduction, with the Cu and Zn loading influencing the product yields. The highest faradaic efficiency (FE) of 62% is achieved at -1.0 V vs. RHE for the conversion of CO2 into CO, HCOOH, CH4, C2H4 and C2H5OH, with a FE of 28% to CH4, C2H4 and C2H5OH at pH 6.8. Al-fum MOF is a chemically robust matrix to disperse Cu and Zn NPs, improving electrocatalyst lifetime during CO2 reduction by minimizing transition metal aggregation during electrode operation.

Safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and efficacy data for the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of MEK stops cell proliferation and induces apoptosis; therefore, this enzyme is a key anticancer target. Trametinib is a selective, orally administered MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor. We aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose of trametinib and to assess its safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and response rate in individuals with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre phase 1 study in patients with advanced solid tumours and adequate organ function. The study was in three parts: dose escalation to define the maximum tolerated dose; identification of the recommended phase 2 dose; and assessment of pharmacodynamic changes. Intermittent and continuous dosing regimens were analysed. Blood samples and tumour biopsy specimens were taken to assess pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes. Adverse events were defined with common toxicity criteria, and tumour response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00687622. FINDINGS: We enrolled 206 patients (median age 58·5 years, range 19-92). Dose-limiting toxic effects included rash (n=2), diarrhoea (n=1), and central serous retinopathy (n=2). The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash or dermatitis acneiform (n=165; 80%) and diarrhoea (87; 42%), most of which were grade 1 and 2. The maximum tolerated dose was 3 mg once daily and the recommended phase 2 dose was 2 mg a day. The effective half-life of trametinib was about 4 days. At the recommended phase 2 dose, the exposure profile of the drug showed low interpatient variability and a small peak:trough ratio of 1·81. Furthermore, mean concentrations in plasma were greater than the preclinical target concentration throughout the dosing interval. Pathway inhibition and clinical activity were seen, with 21 (10%) objective responses recorded. INTERPRETATION: The recommended phase 2 dose of 2 mg trametinib once a day is tolerable, with manageable side-effects. Trametinib's inhibition of the expected target and clinical activity warrants its further development as a monotherapy and in combination. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Activity of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced melanoma: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: MEK is a member of the MAPK signalling cascade that is commonly activated in melanoma. Direct inhibition of MEK blocks cell proliferation and induces apoptosis. We aimed to analyse safety, efficacy, and genotyping data for the oral, small-molecule MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with melanoma. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, phase 1 three-part study (dose escalation, cohort expansion, and pharmacodynamic assessment). The main results of this study are reported elsewhere; here we present data relating to patients with melanoma. We obtained tumour samples to assess BRAF mutational status, and available tissues underwent exploratory genotyping analysis. Disease response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and adverse events were defined by common toxicity criteria. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00687622. FINDINGS: 97 patients with melanoma were enrolled, including 81 with cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma (36 BRAF mutant, 39 BRAF wild-type, six BRAF status unknown), and 16 with uveal melanoma. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash or dermatitis acneiform (n=80; 82%) and diarrhoea (44; 45%), most of which were grade 2 or lower. No cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas were recorded. Of 36 patients with BRAF mutations, 30 had not received a BRAF inhibitor before; two complete responses (both confirmed) and ten partial responses (eight confirmed) were noted in this subgroup (confirmed response rate, 33%). Median progression-free survival of this subgroup was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4). Of the six patients who had received previous BRAF inhibition, one unconfirmed partial response was recorded. Of 39 patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma, four partial responses were confirmed (confirmed response rate, 10%). INTERPRETATION: Our data show substantial clinical activity of trametinib in melanoma and suggest that MEK is a valid therapeutic target. Differences in response rates according to mutations indicate the importance of mutational analyses in the future. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Molecular Identification and Evaluation of the Genetic Diversity of Dendrobium Species Collected in Southern Vietnam.

Dendrobium has been widely used not only as ornamental plants but also as food and medicines. The identification and evaluation of the genetic diversity of Dendrobium species support the conservation of genetic resources of endemic Dendrobium species. Uniquely identifying Dendrobium species used as medicines helps avoid misuse of medicinal herbs. However, it is challenging to identify Dendrobium species morphologically during their immature stage. Based on the DNA barcoding method, it is now possible to efficiently identify species in a shorter time. In this study, the genetic diversity of 76 Dendrobium samples from Southern Vietnam was investigated based on the ITS (Internal transcribed spacer), ITS2, matK (Maturase_K), rbcL (ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylase large subunit) and trnH-psbA (the internal space of the gene coding histidine transfer RNA (trnH) and gene coding protein D1, a polypeptide of the photosystem I reaction center (psaB)) regions. The ITS region was found to have the best identification potential. Nineteen out of 24 Dendrobium species were identified based on phylogenetic tree and Indel information of this region. Among these, seven identified species were used as medicinal herbs. The results of this research contributed to the conservation, propagation, and hybridization of indigenous Dendrobium species in Southern Vietnam.

DYNAMO: A Phase II Study of Duvelisib (IPI-145) in Patients With Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL) remains largely incurable and often requires multiple lines of treatment after becoming refractory to standard therapies. Duvelisib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for relapsed or refractory (RR) chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) and RR follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more prior systemic therapies. On the basis of the activity of duvelisib, a first-in-class oral dual inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase-δ,-γ, in RR iNHL in a phase I study, the safety and efficacy of duvelisib monotherapy was evaluated in iNHL refractory to rituximab and either chemotherapy or radioimmunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable iNHL (FL, SLL, or marginal zone B-cell lymphoma) double refractory to rituximab (monotherapy or in combination) and to either chemotherapy or radioimmunotherapy. All were treated with duvelisib 25 mg orally twice daily in 28-day cycles until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) using the revised International Working Group criteria for malignant lymphoma. RESULTS: This open-label, global phase II trial enrolled 129 patients (median age, 65 years; median of three prior lines of therapy) with an ORR of 47.3% (SLL, 67.9%; FL, 42.2%; MZL, 38.9%). The estimated median duration of response was 10 months, and the estimated median progression-free survival was 9.5 months. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were diarrhea (48.8%), nausea (29.5%), neutropenia (28.7%), fatigue (27.9%), and cough (27.1%). Among the 88.4% of patients with at least one grade 3 or greater TEAE, the most common TEAEs were neutropenia (24.8%), diarrhea (14.7%), anemia (14.7%), and thrombocytopenia (11.6%). CONCLUSION: In the DYNAMO study, oral duvelisib monotherapy demonstrated clinically meaningful activity and a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated, double-refractory iNHL, consistent with previous observations. Duvelisib may provide a new oral treatment option for this patient population of which many are elderly and in need of additional therapies.

A phase Ib dose-escalation study of the oral pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) in combination with the oral MEK1/2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212) in patients with selected advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: MAPK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways play important roles in many tumors. In this study, safety, antitumor activity, and pharmacokinetics of buparlisib (pan class PI3K inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor) were evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This open-label, dose-finding, phase Ib study comprised dose escalation, followed by expansion part in patients with RAS- or BRAF-mutant non-small cell lung, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: Of note, 113 patients were enrolled, 66 and 47 in dose-escalation and -expansion parts, respectively. MTD was established as buparlisib 70 mg + trametinib 1.5 mg daily [5/15, 33% patients with dose-limiting toxicities (DLT)] and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) buparlisib 60 mg + trametinib 1.5 mg daily (1/10, 10% patients with DLTs). DLTs included stomatitis (8/103, 8%), diarrhea, dysphagia, and creatine kinase (CK) increase (2/103, 2% each). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 73 patients (65%); mainly CK increase, stomatitis, AST/ALT (aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase) increase, and rash. For all (21) patients with ovarian cancer, overall response rate was 29% [1 complete response, 5 partial responses (PR)], disease control rate 76%, and median progression-free survival was 7 months. Minimal activity was observed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (1/17 PR) and pancreatic cancer (best overall response was SD). Relative to historical data, buparlisib exposure increased and trametinib exposure slightly increased with the combination. CONCLUSIONS: At RP2D, buparlisib 60 mg + trametinib 1.5 mg daily shows promising antitumor activity for patients with KRAS-mutant ovarian cancer. Long-term tolerability of the combination at RP2D is challenging, due to frequent dose interruptions and reductions for toxicity.

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of trametinib, an oral MEK inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine for patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Trametinib, an oral mitogen/extracellular signal-related kinase (MEK)1/2 inhibitor, holds promise for malignancies with rat sarcoma (RAS) mutations, like pancreas cancer. This phase II study was designed to determine overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreas cancer treated with trametinib and gemcitabine. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR); safety end-points were also assessed. METHODS: Adults with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomised (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then days 1, 8 and 15 of 28-day cycles) plus trametinib or placebo 2mg daily. RAS mutations were determined in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) and archival tumour tissue. OS was evaluated in kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutant and wild-type subgroups. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 160 patients were similar in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.44; P=.453); median OS was 8.4 months with gemcitabine plus trametinib and 6.7 months with gemcitabine plus placebo. Median PFS (16 versus 15 weeks), ORR (22% versus 18%) and median DOR (23.9 versus 16.1 weeks) were also similar for trametinib and placebo arms, respectively. KRAS mutation-positive patients (n=103) showed no difference in OS between arms. Thrombocytopenia, diarrhoea, rash and stomatitis were more frequent with trametinib, as was grade 3 anaemia. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of trametinib to gemcitabine did not improve OS, PFS, ORR or DOR in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. Outcomes were independent of KRAS mutations determined by cfDNA.

A phase 1b study of trametinib, an oral Mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine in advanced solid tumours.

PURPOSE: This phase 1b study determined the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and schedule of trametinib in combination with gemcitabine. Secondary objectives included assessment of clinical activity and steady-state pharmacokinetics. METHODS: Adults with advanced solid tumours, adequate organ function and Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ⩽ 1 were eligible. Once-daily oral trametinib (1mg, 2mg, 2.5mg) was escalated in a 3+3 design with standard gemcitabine dosing (1000 mg/m(2) IV Days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles). During expansion, trametinib 2mg was combined with gemcitabine. Pharmacokinetics samples were collected on Day 15 pre-dose and 1, 2, 4 and 6h post-dose; tumour assessments were repeated every two cycles. RESULTS: Between 8/2009 and 11/2010, 31 patients (pancreas = 11, breast = 6, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) = 4, other = 10) were treated. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in each cohort, and included febrile neutropenia, transaminase elevation and uveitis. The RP2D was declared as trametinib 2mg daily with standard gemcitabine dosing. Common grade 3/4 toxicities at the RP2D included: neutropenia (38%), thrombocytopenia (19%) and transaminase elevation (14%). Of 10 patients with measurable pancreatic cancer, three partial responses (30%) were documented; two additional patients achieved objective responses (breast, complete response (CR); salivary glands, partial response (PR)). Pharmacokinetics suggested no change in exposures of either drug in combination. CONCLUSION: Administration of trametinib at its full monotherapy dose of 2mg daily in combination with standard gemcitabine dosing (1000 mg/m(2) IV Days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days) was feasible. Though most toxicities were manageable, the addition of trametinib may increase gemcitabine-associated myelosuppression. Future studies of this combination will require monitoring to maintain dose and schedule.

Phase II study of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor Trametinib in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant cutaneous melanoma previously treated with or without a BRAF inhibitor.

PURPOSE: BRAF mutations promote melanoma cell proliferation and survival primarily through activation of MEK. The purpose of this study was to determine the response rate (RR) for the selective, allosteric MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212), in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, two-stage, phase II study with two cohorts. Patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor (cohort A) or treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (BRAF-inhibitor naive; cohort B) were enrolled. Patients received 2 mg of trametinib orally once daily. RESULTS: In cohort A (n = 40), there were no confirmed objective responses and 11 patients (28%) with stable disease (SD); the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. In cohort B (n = 57), there was one (2%) complete response, 13 (23%) partial responses (PRs), and 29 patients (51%) with SD (confirmed RR, 25%); the median PFS was 4.0 months. One patient each with BRAF K601E and BRAF V600R had prolonged PR. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events for all patients were skin-related toxicity, nausea, peripheral edema, diarrhea, pruritis, and fatigue. No cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma was observed. CONCLUSION: Trametinib was well tolerated. Significant clinical activity was observed in BRAF-inhibitor-naive patients previously treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Minimal clinical activity was observed as sequential therapy in patients previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor. Together, these data suggest that BRAF-inhibitor resistance mechanisms likely confer resistance to MEK-inhibitor monotherapy. These data support further evaluation of trametinib in BRAF-inhibitor-naive BRAF-mutant melanoma, including rarer forms of BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Phase 1 study of AMG 386, a selective angiopoietin 1/2-neutralizing peptibody, in combination with chemotherapy in adults with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of AMG 386, an investigational selective angiopoietin 1/2-neutralizing peptibody, in combination with FOLFOX-4 (F), carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/P), or docetaxel (D), in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Three cohorts of patients (F, n = 6; C/P, n = 8; D, n = 12) received one full cycle of chemotherapy alone during the pretreatment phase, followed by administration of AMG 386 10 mg/kg i.v. weekly in combination with chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerance. Safety and tolerability, tumor response, pharmacokinetic profiles, and biomarkers were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled; 22 received treatment with AMG 386. No dose-limiting toxicities or grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to AMG 386 were reported. The most common adverse events were diarrhea and hypomagnesemia (n = 3 each). One patient developed grade 2 hypertension and one had grade 1 subconjunctival eye hemorrhage. No neutralizing antibodies to AMG 386 were detected. There were no pharmacokinetic interactions between AMG 386 and F, C/P, or D. One patient receiving AMG 386 plus C/P for bladder cancer refractory to gemcitabine/cisplatin had a complete response at week 8. The remaining best tumor responses were partial response (n = 3, one from each cohort), stable disease > or =8 weeks (n = 13), and progressive disease (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Weekly administration of AMG 386 in combination with three common chemotherapy regimens was well tolerated in patients with advanced solid tumors. No pharmacokinetic interactions between AMG 386 and any of the tested chemotherapy regimens were noted. Promising antitumor activity was observed with all three treatment combinations.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of AMG 386, a selective angiopoietin inhibitor, in adult patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE AMG 386 is an investigational peptide-Fc fusion protein (ie, peptibody) that inhibits angiogenesis by preventing the interaction of angiopoietin-1 and angiopoietin-2 with their receptor, Tie2. This first-in-human study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of AMG 386 in adults with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients in sequential cohorts received weekly intravenous AMG 386 doses of 0.3, 1, 3, 10, or 30 mg/kg. Results Thirty-two patients were enrolled on the study and received AMG 386. One occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity was seen at 30 mg/kg: respiratory arrest, which likely was caused by tumor burden that was possibly related to AMG 386. The most common toxicities were fatigue and peripheral edema. Proteinuria (n = 11) was observed without clinical sequelae. Only four patients (12%) experienced treatment-related toxicities greater than grade 1. A maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. PK was dose-linear and the mean terminal-phase elimination half-life values ranged from 3.1 to 6.3 days. Serum AMG 386 levels appeared to reach steady-state after four weekly doses, and there was minimal accumulation. No anti-AMG 386 neutralizing antibodies were detected. Reductions in volume transfer constant (K(trans); measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging) were observed in 10 patients (13 lesions) 48 hours to 8 weeks after treatment. One patient with refractory ovarian cancer achieved a confirmed partial response (ie, 32.5% reduction by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and withdrew from the study with a partial response after 156 weeks of treatment; four patients experienced stable disease for at least 16 weeks. CONCLUSION Weekly AMG 386 appeared well tolerated, and its safety profile appeared distinct from that of vascular endothelial growth factor-axis inhibitors. AMG 386 also appeared to impact tumor vascularity and showed antitumor activity in this patient population.

Inability of memory T cells to induce graft-versus-host disease is a result of an abortive alloresponse.

Several groups, including our own, have independently demonstrated that effector memory T cells from non-alloantigen-primed donors do not cause graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). In the current study, we further investigated whether this approach could be extended to all memory T cells, and we studied the underlying mechanisms. Neither total memory T cells nor purified central memory T cells were able to induce GVHD. Memory T cells were at least 3-log less potent than bulk T cells in mediating GVHD. As expected, memory T cells failed to elicit cytotoxicity and proliferated poorly against alloantigens in standard 5-day mixed-lymphocyte cultures. However, the proliferative responses of memory T cells were more comparable with those of bulk and naive T cells when the culture time was shortened. Moreover, the frequencies of IL-2-secreting cells measured by 42-hour enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISPOT) assay were similar among naive, memory, and bulk T cells. These data indicated that memory T cells are able to respond to alloantigens initially but fail to develop to full potential. The abortive immune response, which was mediated by non-alloantigen-specific memory T cells in response to alloantigens, may explain why memory T cells from unprimed and non-alloantigen-primed donors could not induce GVHD.