Tolerance and efficacy of BRAF plus MEK inhibition in patients with melanoma who previously have received programmed cell death protein 1-based therapy.

BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition (BRAF-MEK) is a standard therapy for patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, but to the authors' knowledge, the tolerance, adverse event (AE) profile, and efficacy have not been well defined in the post-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) setting. METHODS: Patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma who received combined BRAF-MEK after prior PD-1-based therapy were assembled from 4 tertiary care centers in the United States and Australia. Dose modification was defined as a treatment break, dose reduction, or intermittent dosing. Rates of hospitalization and discontinuation due to AEs were collected, and overall survival (OS) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods from the time of the initiation of BRAF-MEK therapy. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients were identified as having received a BRAF-MEK regimen at a median of 34 days after the last dose of PD-1-based therapy. The majority of patients (86%) received the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib. Approximately 80% of patients had American Joint Committee on Cancer M1c or M1d disease. Sixty-five regimens (83%) had ≥1 dose modification. The median time to the first dose modification was 14 days; 86% occurred within 90 days and 71% involved pyrexia. Dose modifications were more common in patients receiving BRAF-MEK <90 days after the last dose of PD-1 and who were not receiving steroids. Of the dose modifications, 25 (31%) led to an AE-related hospitalization. Among 55 BRAF-naive patients, the median time receiving BRAF-MEK therapy was 5.8 months and the median OS was 15.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients receiving BRAF-MEK inhibition after PD-1 therapy require dose interruptions, and a significant minority require hospitalization for AEs. In this higher risk population, the median time receiving therapy and OS may be inferior to those presented in published phase 3 trials.

A phase 2 trial of everolimus and pasireotide long-acting release in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that inhibiting mammalian target of rapamycin and insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor would be efficacious in metastatic uveal melanoma. This was a phase 2 trial of everolimus 10 mg daily plus pasireotide long-acting release 60 mg every 28 days enrolling patients with progressive, metastatic uveal melanoma to treatment until progression by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate, defined as any objective response or RECIST 1.1 stable disease at 16 weeks. A subset of patients underwent baseline indium-111-octreotide scans. A total of 14 patients were enrolled, of which 13 were evaluable for the primary endpoint, before the study was terminated due to poor accrual. Three of 13 (26%) patients obtained clinical benefit. Seven of 13 (54%) had stable disease lasting for a median of 8 weeks (range: 8-16 weeks). Grade 3 adverse events deemed at least possibly related to study drugs were hyperglycemia (n=7), oral mucositis (n=2), diarrhea (n=1), hypophosphatemia (n=1), and anemia (n=1). Seven of 14 (50%) patients required at least one dose reduction due to toxicity. Seven of eight (88%) patients with baseline indium-111-octreotide scans had at least one avid lesion, with significant intrapatient heterogeneity. There was a trend toward an association between octreotide avidity and cytostatic response to therapy (P=0.078). The combination of everolimus and pasireotide has limited clinical benefit in this small metastatic uveal melanoma cohort. Dose reductions for side effects were common. Further investigation into the relationship between somatostatin receptor expression and cytostatic activity of somatostatin analogues is warranted.