Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously, a study of ours showed that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib improves progression-free survival compared with dabrafenib and placebo in patients with BRAF Val600Lys/Glu mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. The study was continued to assess the secondary endpoint of overall survival, which we report in this Article. METHODS: We did this double-blind phase 3 study at 113 sites in 14 countries. We enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Participants were computer-randomised (1:1) to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily), or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and overall survival was a secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01584648. FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2012, and Nov 30, 2012, we screened 947 patients for eligibility, of whom 423 were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib and trametinib (n=211) or dabrafenib only (n=212). The final data cutoff was Jan 12, 2015, at which time 222 patients had died. Median overall survival was 25·1 months (95% CI 19·2-not reached) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 18·7 months (15·2-23·7) in the dabrafenib only group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·55-0·92; p=0·0107). Overall survival was 74% at 1 year and 51% at 2 years in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 68% and 42%, respectively, in the dabrafenib only group. Based on 301 events, median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 8·0-13·9) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 8·8 months (5·9-9·3) in the dabrafenib only group (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·53-0·84; p=0·0004; unadjusted for multiple testing). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 181 (87%) of 209 patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 189 (90%) of 211 patients in the dabrafenib only group; the most common was pyrexia (108 patients, 52%) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group, and hyperkeratosis (70 patients, 33%) in the dabrafenib only group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 67 (32%) patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 66 (31%) patients in the dabrafenib only group. INTERPRETATION: The improvement in overall survival establishes the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib as the standard targeted treatment for BRAF Val600 mutation-positive melanoma. Studies assessing dabrafenib and trametinib in combination with immunotherapies are ongoing. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in studies of phase 1 and 2 in patients with BRAF(V600)-mutated metastatic melanoma. We studied the efficacy of dabrafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutated metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients in this open-label phase 3 trial between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 1, 2011. This report is based on a data cutoff date of Dec 19, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, stage IV or unresectable stage III BRAF(V600E) mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily, orally) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (unresectable III+IVM1a+IVM1b vs IVM1c). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and was analysed by intention to treat; safety was assessed per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227889. FINDINGS: Of the 733 patients screened, 250 were randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib (187 patients) or dacarbazine (63 patients). Median progression-free survival was 5·1 months for dabrafenib and 2·7 months for dacarbazine, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·30 (95% CI 0·18-0·51; p<0·0001). At data cutoff, 107 (57%) patients in the dabrafenib group and 14 (22%) in the dacarbazine group remained on randomised treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 100 (53%) of the 187 patients who received dabrafenib and in 26 (44%) of the 59 patients who received dacarbazine. The most common adverse events with dabrafenib were skin-related toxic effects, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. The most common adverse events with dacarbazine were nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, fatigue, and asthenia. Grade 3-4 adverse events were uncommon in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

A Phase 1 dose-escalation study of the safety and pharmacokinetics of once-daily oral foretinib, a multi-kinase inhibitor, in patients with solid tumors.

Foretinib is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor targeting MET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-2, RON, KIT, and AXL kinases. In this Phase 1, open-label, non-randomized study, foretinib was administered once daily at doses of 60 mg, 80 mg, 100 mg, or 120 mg for 28 days. The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and assess the safety and tolerability of the daily oral administration schedule. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and assessment of tumor response. Patients had histologically confirmed metastatic or unresectable solid tumors for which no standard treatments existed and all received oral foretinib once daily. Dose escalation was planned as a conventional "3+3" design with an expansion at the MTD for collection of additional safety and pharmacokinetic information. Thirty-seven patients were treated across four dose levels. The MTD was established as 80 mg foretinib. Dose-limiting toxicities were hypertension, dehydration, and diarrhea. The most common adverse events included fatigue, hypertension, nausea, and diarrhea. Twenty-three of 31 patients (74 %) had a best response of stable disease. No patient had a confirmed partial or complete response. At the MTD, steady state was achieved by approximately 2 weeks, with average post-dose time to maximum concentration, peak concentration, and trough concentration of 4 h, 46 ng/mL, and 24 ng/mL, respectively. In patients treated at the MTD, soluble MET and VEGF-A plasma levels significantly increased (P<0.003) and soluble VEGFR2 plasma levels significantly decreased from baseline (P<0.03). The MTD of foretinib bisphosphate salt was determined to be 80 mg once daily.

Dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain (BREAK-MB): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are common in patients with metastatic melanoma and median overall survival from their diagnosis is typically 17-22 weeks. We assessed dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial in 24 centres in six countries. We enrolled patients with histologically confirmed Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma and at least one asymptomatic brain metastasis (≥5 mm and ≤40 mm in diameter). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were split into two cohorts: those in cohort A had not received previous local treatment for brain metastases and those in cohort B had progressive brain metastases after previous local treatments. Patients received 150 mg oral dabrafenib twice a day until disease progression, death, or unacceptable adverse events. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma who achieved an overall intracranial response, which was defined as a complete response or partial response assessed with a modified form of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1). We included patients who received at least one dose of dabrafenib in efficacy and safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01266967. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2011, and Aug 5, 2011, we enrolled 172 patients: 89 (52%) in cohort A and 83 (48%) in cohort B. 139 (81%) had Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma. 29 (39·2%, 95% CI 28·0-51·2) of 74 patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma in cohort A achieved an overall intracranial response, as did 20 (30·8%, 19·9-43·4) of 65 in cohort B. One (6·7%, 0·2-31·9) of 15 patients with Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma achieved an overall intracranial response in cohort A, as did four (22·2%, 6·4-47·6) of 18 such patients in cohort B. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 38 (22%) patients. Eleven (6%) patients developed squamous-cell carcinoma (five [6%] patients in cohort A, of whom one also had keratoacanthoma; six [7%] in cohort B). Four grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in cohort A: one blood amylase increase, one convulsion, one lipase increase, and one neutropenia. Two grade 4 events occurred in cohort B: one agranulocytosis and one intracranial haemorrhage. 51 (30%) patients had a serious adverse event. The three most frequent serious adverse events were pyrexia (ten [6%] patients), intracranial haemorrhage (ten [6%]; one treatment-related), and squamous-cell carcinoma (11 [6%]). INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib has activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma and brain metastases irrespective of whether they are untreated or have been previously treated but have progressed. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Gender differences in pretreatment quality of life in a prospective lung cancer trial.

The purpose of this analysis was to assess the impact of pretreatment factors on quality of life (QOL) in patients with locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In particular, this study focused on the possible interaction between gender-specific baseline health-related QOL and Karnofsky performance score (KPS) in a prospective randomized lung cancer trial. QOL information, using validated instruments (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L], version 2, and Functional Living Index-Cancer [FLIC]), was prospectively collected in patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 89-01. Between April 1990 and April 1994, 70 eligible patients participated in a phase III trial comparing a regimen containing sequential chemotherapy and radiation therapy versus sequential chemotherapy plus surgery. Of these 70 patients, 46 underwent pretreatment FLIC and 49 underwent pretreatment FACT-L. There was a significant interaction between gender and KPS using FLIC (P = 0.009), which also showed a trend toward significance with FACT (P = 0.09). Significant KPS-by-gender interactions were noted for FACT-L in the physical well-being and additional concerns-lung subscales (P = 0.012 and P = 0.0003, respectively). The results of both the FLIC and FACT-L demonstrated significantly lower scores corresponding to lower KPS values (P = 0.009 and P = 0.016, respectively). Results of this randomized study incorporating prospective QOL measurements suggested that in patients with locally advanced NSCLC, analyzing QOL data by either gender or performance status alone may not accurately reflect how these factors depend upon each another. Understanding the interaction between gender and performance status could lead to better prognosticators and potentially could tailor interventions for specific groups of patients with lung cancer.

The impact of concurrent granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor on radiation-induced mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: a double-blind placebo-controlled prospective phase III study by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9901.

PURPOSE: Based on early clinical evidence of potential mucosal protection by granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study to test the efficacy and safety of GM-CSF in reducing the severity and duration of mucosal injury and pain (mucositis) associated with curative radiotherapy (RT) in head-and-neck cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients included those with head-and-neck cancer with radiation ports encompassing >50% of oral cavity and/or oropharynx. Standard RT ports were used to cover the primary tumor and regional lymphatics at risk in standard fractionation to 60-70 Gy. Concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy was allowed. Patients were randomized to receive subcutaneous injection of GM-CSF 250 microg/m2 or placebo 3 times a week. Mucosal reaction was assessed during the course of RT using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria and the protocol-specific scoring system. RESULTS: Between October 2000 and September 2002, 130 patients from 36 institutions were accrued. Nine patients (7%) were excluded from the analysis, 3 as a result of drug unavailability. More than 80% of the patients participated in the quality-of-life endpoint of this study. The GM-CSF did not cause any increase in toxicity compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in the average mean mucositis score in the GM-CSF and placebo arms by a t test (p = 0.4006). CONCLUSION: This placebo-controlled, randomized study demonstrated no significant effect of GM-CSF given concurrently compared with placebo in reducing the severity or duration of RT-induced mucositis in patients undergoing definitive RT for head-and-neck cancer.

Evaluation of new treatments in radiation oncology: are they better than standard treatments?

CONTEXT: The superiority of innovative over standard treatments is not known. To describe accurately the outcomes of innovations that are tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 3 factors have to be considered: publication rate, quality of trials, and the choice of the adequate comparator intervention. OBJECTIVE: To determine the success rate of innovative treatments by assessing preferences between experimental and standard treatments according to original investigators' conclusions, determining the proportion of RCTs that achieved primary outcomes' statistical significance, and performing meta-analysis to examine if the summary point estimate favored innovative vs standard treatments. DATA SOURCES: Randomized controlled trials conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG). STUDY SELECTION: All completed phase 3 trials conducted by the RTOG since its creation in 1968 until 2002. For multiple publications of the same study, we used the one with the most complete primary outcomes and with the longest follow-up information. DATA EXTRACTION: We used the US National Cancer Institute definition of completed studies to determine the publication rate. We extracted data related to publication status, methodological quality, and treatment comparisons. One investigator extracted the data from all studies and 2 independent investigators extracted randomly about 50% of the data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus during a meeting. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data on 12,734 patients from 57 trials were evaluated. The publication rate was 95%. The quality of trials was high. We found no evidence of inappropriateness of the choice of comparator. Although the investigators judged that standard treatments were preferred in 71% of the comparisons, when data were meta-analyzed innovations were as likely as standard treatments to be successful (odds ratio for survival, 1.01; 99% confidence interval, 0.96-1.07; P = .5). In contrast, treatment-related mortality was worse with innovations (odds ratio, 1.76; 99% confidence interval, 1.01-3.07; P = .008). We found no predictable pattern of treatment successes in oncology: sometimes innovative treatments are better than the standard ones and vice versa; in most cases there were no substantive differences between experimental and conventional treatments. CONCLUSION: The finding that the results in individual trials cannot be predicted in advance indicates that the system and rationale for RCTs is well preserved and that successful interventions can only be identified after an RCT is completed.

Clinically meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes with amifostine in combination with chemoradiation for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: an analysis of RTOG 9801.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to analyze changes in quality of life (QOL) and symptoms from pretreatment to 6 weeks posttreatment in a Phase III randomized study (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9801) of amifostine (AM) vs. no AM in patients with Stages II-III non-small-cell lung cancer receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin as induction and then concurrently with hyperfractionated radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred thirty-eight patients with baseline and 6-week posttreatment QOL data were analyzed. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics between those who did and did not have QOL data. The QOL and symptoms were assessed by using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Global QOL and Pain subscales and the EORTC-Lung Cancer-13 symptom tool. Clinically relevant changes in QOL were characterized by 10-point differences in individual scores pre/post treatment. A daily diary of patient-rated difficulty swallowing and a weekly physician-rated dysphagia log (using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria) were completed during treatment. Weight loss was monitored. Differences in outcomes were examined according to smoking status, alcohol use, and sex. RESULTS: Patients receiving AM reported significantly greater pain reduction after chemoradiation (34% vs. no AM, 21%), less difficulty swallowing during chemoradiation, and less weight loss than patients not receiving AM. However, physician-rated assessments of dysphagia were not significantly different by treatment arm. There were no other significant changes in QOL or symptoms according to treatment arm, smoking status, alcohol use, or sex. CONCLUSIONS: Patient evaluations of difficulty swallowing and pain suggest benefits from AM use that are distinct from clinician-rated assessments.

Accreditation and quality assurance for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: Multicenter clinical trials using Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in lung cancer.

Starting in 2002, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group in North America began the process of developing multicenter prospective trials in lung cancer using Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). Much of the work was based on the prospective single institution trials from Indiana University that had been presented and published. In late 2004, RTOG 0236 using SBRT for medically inoperable patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was activated for accrual. Prior to activation, representatives from the Lung, Image-Guided Therapy, Physics, and Radiobiology Committees met on regular occasions to design the multicenter study and quality assurance measures. SBRT is not a black box, and the essence of the therapy had to be distilled via guidelines. Issues related to patient selection, method of dosimetry construction, equipment requirements, motion assessments and control, site accreditation, data exchange, and follow-up policies were worked out by compromise and consensus. RTOG 0236 has nearly completed its accrual. The Lung Committee has initiated the development of several other trials, each building on the last, to investigate the therapy in central tumors, in combinations with systemic therapy, in operable patients, and in lung metastases patients. The guidelines developed for RTOG 0236 will be refined to take advantage of more modern innovations including heterogeneity corrections and intensity modulation when appropriate. The development of RTOG 0618 using SBRT in operable patients with early stage NSCLC is a testament to both the enthusiasm from already published works and prospective multicenter clinical testing using SBRT techniques.

Consultation in paediatric rehabilitation for behaviour problems in young children with cerebral palsy and/or developmental delay.

To measure the effectiveness of consultation for behaviour problems in a paediatric rehabilitation setting, this paper used longitudinal assessment of children who received the intervention through their regularly scheduled appointments with their Occupational Therapist (OT), Physical Therapist (PT) or Speech and Language Pathologist (SLP) at three paediatric rehabilitation clinics in Columbia, South Carolina. The participants were 86 children with cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay (DD) and medical conditions, ages 1-6 years, and their families. The intervention consisted of monthly meetings between rehabilitation therapists and a team consisting of a Child Psychiatrist, Developmental Pediatrician, Psychologists and a Preventive Medicine specialist. There were statistically significant improvements in the sub-scales of the Vineland adaptive skills assessment and the measures of family stress associated with the parent's attitude toward the child with a disability. The magnitude of the improvement was greatest for children with Mental Development Indices (MDI) less than 50. This assessment of young children with disabilities demonstrates the effectiveness of a consultation model in improving adaptive behaviour and parent attitude about their child.

Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether poor reporting of methods in randomised controlled trials reflects on poor methods. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Reports of randomised controlled trials conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group since its establishment in 1968. PARTICIPANTS: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Outcome measures Content of reports compared with the design features described in the protocols for all randomised controlled trials. RESULTS: The methodological quality of 56 randomised controlled trials was better than reported. Adequate allocation concealment was achieved in all trials but reported in only 42% of papers. An intention to treat analysis was done in 83% of trials but reported in only 69% of papers. The sample size calculation was performed in 76% of the studies, but reported in only 16% of papers. End points were clearly defined and alpha and beta errors were prespecified in 76% and 74% of the trials, respectively, but only reported in 10% of the papers. The one exception was the description of drop outs, where the frequency of reporting was similar to that contained in the original statistical files of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of methodological aspects of randomised controlled trials does not necessarily reflect the conduct of the trial. Reviewing research protocols and contacting trialists for more information may improve quality assessment.