Sequencing of Checkpoint or BRAF/MEK Inhibitors on Brain Metastases in Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the order of treatment with checkpoint inhibitors or BRAF/MEK inhibitors on the development of brain metastases in patients with metastatic unresectable BRAFV600-mutant melanoma is unknown. The SECOMBIT trial examined the impact of the order of receipt of these treatments in such patients. METHODS: In this three-arm trial, we reviewed patients without brain metastases who received the BRAF/MEK inhibitors encorafenib and binimetinib until they had progressive disease followed by the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab (arm A); or treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by encorafenib and binimetinib (arm B); or treatment with encorafenib and binimetinib for 8 weeks followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by retreatment with encorafenib arm binimetinib (arm C). RESULTS: Brain metastases were discovered during the trial in 23/69 patients in arm A, 11/69 in arm B, and 9/68 in arm C. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the 60-month brain metastases-free survival rates were 56% for arm A, 80% for arm B (hazard ratio [HR] vs. A: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.58), and 85% for arm C (HR vs. A: 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, the treatment sequence of immune checkpoint inhibition followed by BRAF/MEK inhibitors was associated with longer periods of new brain metastases-free survival than the reverse sequence. A regimen in which immune checkpoint inhibition was sandwiched between BRAF/MEK inhibition also appeared to be protective against brain metastases. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02631447.).

Lymphocyte T Subsets and Outcome of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Melanoma Patients: An Oncologist's Perspective on Current Knowledge.

Melanoma is the most aggressive and deadly form of skin cancer, and its incidence has been steadily increasing over the past few decades, particularly in the Caucasian population. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), anti-PD-1 monotherapy or in combination with anti-CTLA-4, and more recently, anti-PD-1 plus anti-LAG-3 have changed the clinical evolution of this disease. However, a significant percentage of patients do not benefit from these therapies. Therefore, to improve patient selection, it is imperative to look for novel biomarkers. Immune subsets, particularly the quantification of lymphocyte T populations, could contribute to the identification of ICI responders. The main purpose of this review is to thoroughly examine significant published data on the potential role of lymphocyte T subset distribution in peripheral blood (PB) or intratumorally as prognostic and predictive of response biomarkers in advanced melanoma patients treated with ICI regardless of BRAFV600 mutational status.

Outcomes With Postrecurrence Systemic Therapy Following Adjuvant Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment for Resected Melanoma in CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In phase III CheckMate 238, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma without a significant difference in overall survival (OS). Here, we investigate progression-free survival (PFS) and OS after postrecurrence systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 15 years or older with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and tumor PD-L1 status and randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks for 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Patients with recurrence in each group were assessed for PFS and OS from subsequent systemic therapy (SST) initiation per recurrence timing (≤12 months [early] v >12 months [late] from initial therapy). RESULTS: Recurrences occurred in 198 (44%) of 453 nivolumab-treated patients (122 early, 76 late) and 232 (51%) of 453 ipilimumab-treated patients (160 early, 72 late). Median PFS on next-line systemic therapy for nivolumab-treated patients recurring early versus late was 4.7 versus 12.4 months (24-month rates, 16% v 31%); median OS was 19.8 versus 42.8 months (24-month rates: 37% v 73%). In response to subsequent therapy, patients on nivolumab with late versus early recurrence were more likely to benefit from anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Nivolumab-treated patients with either an early or late recurrence benefitted from an ipilimumab-based therapy or targeted therapy, each with similar OS. CONCLUSION: Postrecurrence survival was longer for patients who recurred >12 months. Patients on nivolumab who recurred early benefitted from SST but had better survival with ipilimumab-based regimens or targeted therapy compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

Encorafenib and binimetinib followed by radiotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma and brain metastases (E-BRAIN/GEM1802 phase II study).

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib plus binimetinib (EB) is a standard of care treatment for advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. We assessed efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma and brain metastasis (BM) and explored if radiotherapy improves the duration of response. METHODS: E-BRAIN/GEM1802 was a prospective, multicenter, single arm, phase II trial that enrolled patients with melanoma BRAFV600-mutant and BM. Patients received encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg BID, and those who achieved partial response or stable disease at first tumor assessment were offered radiotherapy. Treatment continued until progression.Primary endpoint was intracranial response rate (icRR) after 2 months of EB, establishing a futility threshold of 60%. RESULTS: The study included 25 patients with no BM symptoms and 23 patients with BM symptoms regardless of using corticosteroids. Among them, 31 patients (64.6%) received sequential radiotherapy. After two months, icRR was 70.8% (95% CI: 55.9-83.1); 10.4% complete response. Median intracranial PFS and OS were 8.5 (95% CI: 6.4-11.8) and 15.9 (95% CI: 10.7-21.4) months, respectively (8.3 months for icPFS and 13.9 months OS for patients receiving RDT). Most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased (10.4%). CONCLUSION: Encorafenib plus binimetinib showed promising clinical benefit in terms of icRR, and tolerable safety profile with low frequency of high grade TRAEs, in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma and BM, including those with symptoms and need for steroids. Sequential radiotherapy is feasible but it does not seem to prolong response.

Feasibility and Impact of Embedding an Extended DNA and RNA Tissue-Based Sequencing Panel for the Routine Care of Patients with Advanced Melanoma in Spain.

Targeted NGS allows a fast and efficient multi-gene analysis and the detection of key gene aberrations in melanoma. In this study, we aim to describe the genetic alterations in a series of 87 melanoma cases using the oncomine focus assay (OFA), relate these results with the clinicopathological features of the patients, and compare them with our previous study results in which we used a smaller panel, the oncomine solid tumor (OST) DNA kit. Patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma at our center from 2020 to 2022 were included and DNA and RNA were extracted for sequencing. Common mutated genes were BRAF (29%), NRAS (28%), ALK, KIT, and MAP2K1 (5% each). Co-occurring mutations were detected in 29% of the samples, including BRAF with KIT, CTNNB1, EGFR, ALK, HRAS, or MAP2K1. Amplifications and rearrangements were detected in 5% of cases. Only BRAF mutation showed a significant statistical association with sun exposure. For patients with a given genetic profile, the melanoma survival and recurrence-free survival rates were equivalent, but not for stage and LDH values. This expanded knowledge of molecular alterations has helped to more comprehensively characterize our patients and has provided relevant information for deciding the best treatment strategy.

Predictive and Prognostic Factors in Melanoma Central Nervous System Metastases-A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is the cancer with the highest risk of dissemination to the central nervous system (CNS), one of the leading causes of mortality from this cancer. OBJECTIVE: To identify patients at higher risk of developing CNS metastases and to evaluate associated prognostic factors. METHODS: A cohort study (1998-2023) assessed patients who developed CNS melanoma metastases. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors at melanoma diagnosis for CNS metastasis. Cox regression analysis evaluated the CNS-independent metastasis-related variables impacting survival. RESULTS: Out of 4718 patients, 380 (8.05%) developed CNS metastases. Multivariate logistic regression showed that a higher Breslow index, mitotic rate ≥ 1 mm2, ulceration, and microscopic satellitosis were significant risk factors for CNS metastasis development. Higher patient age and the location of the primary tumor in the upper or lower extremities were protective factors. In survival analysis, post-CNS metastasis, symptomatic disease, prior non-CNS metastases, CNS debut with multiple metastases, elevated LDH levels, and leptomeningeal involvement correlated with poorer survival. CONCLUSION: Predictive factors in the primary tumor independently associated with brain metastases include microscopic satellitosis, ulceration, higher Breslow index, and trunk location. Prognostic factors for lower survival in CNS disease include symptomatic disease, multiple CNS metastases, and previous metastases from different sites.

Anti-PD-1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 for advanced melanoma patients with liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 has been associated with improvement in response and survival over anti-PD-1 monotherapy in unselected patients with advanced melanoma. Whether patients with liver metastases also benefit from the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 over anti-PD-1, is unclear. In this study, we sought to assess whether the combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 leads to better response, progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy for patients with liver metastases. METHODS: We have conducted an international multicentre retrospective study. Patients with advanced melanoma with liver metastases treated with 1st line anti-PD1 monotherapy or with anti-CTLA-4 were included. The endpoints of this study were: objective response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: With a median follow-up from commencement of anti-PD-1 monotherapy or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 of 47 months (95% CI, 42-51), objective response rate was higher with combination therapy (47%) versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy (35%) (p = 0.0027), while progression-free survival and overall survival were not statistically different between both treatment groups. However, on multivariable analysis with multiple imputation for missing values and adjusting for predefined variables, combination of anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 was associated with higher objective response (OR 2.21, 1.46 - 3.36; p < 0.001), progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 0.57 - 0.92; p = 0.009) and overall survival (HR 0.71, 0.54 - 0.94; p = 0.018) compared to anti-PD1 monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study will help guide treatment selection for patients who present with liver metastases, suggesting that combination therapy should be considered for this group of patients.

COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff). METHODS: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed. RESULTS: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

Efficacy and Safety of the Melphalan/Hepatic Delivery System in Patients with Unresectable Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: Results from an Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter Phase 3 Study.

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma (UM) has a poor prognosis once liver metastases occur. The melphalan/Hepatic Delivery System (melphalan/HDS) is a drug/device combination used for liver-directed treatment of metastatic UM (mUM) patients. The purpose of the FOCUS study was to assess the efficacy and safety of melphalan/HDS in patients with unresectable mUM. METHODS: Eligible patients with mUM received treatment with melphalan (3.0 mg/kg ideal body weight) once every 6 to 8 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The study enrolled 102 patients with mUM. Treatment was attempted in 95 patients, and 91 patients received treatment. In the treated population (n = 91), the ORR was 36.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 26.44-47.01), including 7.7 % of patients with a complete response. Thus, the study met its primary end point because the lower bound of the 95 % CI for ORR exceeded the upper bound (8.3 %) from the benchmark meta-analysis. The median DOR was 14 months, and the median OS was 20.5 months, with an OS of 80 % at 1 year. The median PFS was 9 months, with a PFS of 65 % at 6 months. The most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (15.8 %) and neutropenia (10.5 %), treated mostly on an outpatient basis with observation. No treatment-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with melphalan/HDS provides a clinically meaningful response rate and demonstrates a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with unresectable mUM (study funded by Delcath; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02678572; EudraCT no. 2015-000417-44).

Genomic deletions explain the generation of alternative BRAF isoforms conferring resistance to MAPK inhibitors in melanoma.

Resistance to MAPK inhibitors (MAPKi), the main cause of relapse in BRAF-mutant melanoma, is associated with the production of alternative BRAF mRNA isoforms (altBRAFs) in up to 30% of patients receiving BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. These altBRAFs have been described as being generated by alternative pre-mRNA splicing, and splicing modulation has been proposed as a therapeutic strategy to overcome resistance. In contrast, we report that altBRAFs are generated through genomic deletions. Using different in vitro models of altBRAF-mediated melanoma resistance, we demonstrate the production of altBRAFs exclusively from the BRAF V600E allele, correlating with corresponding genomic deletions. Genomic deletions are also detected in tumor samples from melanoma and breast cancer patients expressing altBRAFs. Along with the identification of altBRAFs in BRAF wild-type and in MAPKi-naive melanoma samples, our results represent a major shift in our understanding of mechanisms leading to the generation of BRAF transcripts variants associated with resistance in melanoma.

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma: 4-year survival and biomarkers evaluation from the phase II SECOMBIT trial.

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy.

Combined immunotherapy in melanoma patients with brain metastases: A multicenter international study.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab (COMBO) is the standard treatment in asymptomatic patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM). We report a retrospective study aiming to assess the outcome of patients with MBM treated with COMBO outside clinical trials. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with COMBO have been included. Demographics, steroid treatment, Central Nervous System (CNS)-related symptoms, BRAF status, radiotherapy or surgery, response rate (RR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) have been analyzed. RESULTS: 376 patients were included: 262 received COMBO as first-line and 114 as a subsequent line of therapy, respectively. In multivariate analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (≥1 vs 0) [HR 1.97 (1.46-2.66)], extracerebral metastases [HR 1.92 (1.09-3.40)], steroid use at the start of COMBO [HR 1.59 (1.08-2.38)], CNS-related symptoms [HR 1.59 (1.08-2.34)], SRS (Stereotactic radiosurgery) [HR 0.63 (0.45-0.88)] and surgery [HR 0.63 (0.43-0.91)] were associated with OS. At a median follow-up of 30 months, the median OS (mOS) in the overall population was 21.3 months (18.1-24.5), whilst OS was not yet reached in treatment-naive patients, steroid-free at baseline. In patients receiving COMBO after BRAF/MEK inhibitors(i) PFS at 1-year was 15.7%. The dose of steroids (dexamethasone < vs ≥ 4 mg/day) was not prognostic. SRS alongside COMBO vs COMBO alone in asymptomatic patients prolonged survival. (p = 0.013). Toxicities were consistent with previous studies. An independent validation cohort (n = 51) confirmed the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate remarkable long-term survival in treatment-naïve, asymptomatic, steroid-free patients, as well as in those receiving SRS plus COMBO. PFS and OS were poor in patients receiving COMBO after progressing to BRAF/MEKi.

Management of infliximab refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor gastrointestinal toxicity: a multicenter case series.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) gastrointestinal toxicity (gastritis, enteritis, colitis) is a major cause of morbidity and treatment-related death. Guidelines agree steroid-refractory cases warrant infliximab, however best management of infliximab-refractory ICI gastrointestinal toxicity (IRIGItox) is unknown. METHODS: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective case series. IRIGItox was defined as failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 1 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0) following ≥2 infliximab doses or failure of symptom resolution ≤grade 2 after one dose. Data were extracted regarding demographics, steroid use, response to treatment, and survival outcomes. Toxicity was graded at symptom onset and time of infliximab failure. Efficacy of infliximab refractory therapy was assessed by symptom resolution, time to resolution and steroid wean duration. Survival outcomes were examined based on immunosuppressive therapy received. RESULTS: 78 patients were identified: median age 60 years; 56% men; majority melanoma (N=70, 90%); 60 (77%) received anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 alone or in combination with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 and most had colitis (N=74, 95%). 106 post-infliximab treatments were given: 31 calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs); 27 antimetabolites (mycophenolate, azathioprine); 16 non-systemic immunomodulatory agents (eg, mesalazine or budesonide); 15 vedolizumab; 5 other biologics (anti-interleukin-12/23, 16, Janus kinase inhibitors) and 7 interventional procedures (including colectomy); 5 did not receive post-infliximab therapy. Symptom resolution was achieved in most (N=23/31, 74%) patients treated with CNIs; 12/27 (44%) with antimetabolites; 7/16 (44%) with non-systemic immunomodulation, 8/15 (53%) with vedolizumab and 5/7 (71%) with interventional procedures. No non-vedolizumab biologics resulted in toxicity resolution. CNIs had the shortest time to symptom resolution (12 days) and steroid wean (43 days); however, were associated with poorer event-free survival (6.3 months) and overall survival (26.8 months) than other agents. Conversely, vedolizumab had the longest time to toxicity resolution and steroid wean, 66 and 124 days, but most favorable survival data: EFS 24.5 months; median OS not reached. Six death occurred (three due to IRIGItox or management of toxicity; three with persisting IRIGItox and progressive disease). CONCLUSIONS: IRIGItox causes major morbidity and mortality. Management is heterogeneous. CNIs appear most likely to result in toxicity resolution in the shortest time period, however, are associated with poorer oncological outcomes in contrast to vedolizumab.

A Phase II Trial of the CD40 Agonistic Antibody Sotigalimab (APX005M) in Combination with Nivolumab in Subjects with Metastatic Melanoma with Confirmed Disease Progression on Anti-PD-1 Therapy.

PURPOSE: Disease progression during or after anti-PD-1-based treatment is common in advanced melanoma. Sotigalimab is a CD40 agonist antibody with a unique epitope specificity and Fc receptor binding profile optimized for activation of CD40-expressing antigen-presenting cells. Preclinical data indicated that CD40 agonists combined with anti-PD1 could overcome resistance to anti-PD-1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase II trial to evaluate the combination of sotigalimab 0.3 mg/kg and nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks in patients with advanced melanoma following confirmed disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor. The primary objective was to determine the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Thirty-eight subjects were enrolled and evaluable for safety. Thirty-three were evaluable for activity. Five confirmed partial responses (PR) were observed for an ORR of 15%. Two PRs are ongoing at 45.9+ and 26+ months, whereas the other three responders relapsed at 41.1, 18.7, and 18.4 months. The median duration of response was at least 26 months. Two additional patients had stable disease for >6 months. Thirty-four patients (89%) experienced at least one adverse event (AE), and 13% experienced a grade 3 AE related to sotigalimab. The most common AEs were pyrexia, chills, nausea, fatigue, pruritus, elevated liver function, rash, vomiting, headache, arthralgia, asthenia, myalgia, and diarrhea. There were no treatment-related SAEs, deaths, or discontinuation of sotigalimab due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Sotigalimab plus nivolumab had a favorable safety profile consistent with the toxicity profiles of each agent. The combination resulted in durable and prolonged responses in a subset of patients with anti-PD-1-resistant melanoma, warranting further evaluation in this setting. See related commentary by Wu and Luke, p. 9.

Health-Related Quality of Life with Pembrolizumab in Patients with Locally Advanced or Recurrent or Metastatic Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: KEYNOTE-629.

INTRODUCTION: At first interim analysis of KEYNOTE-629, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with pembrolizumab was stable or improved over 48 weeks in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). HRQoL results from the second interim analysis in R/M or locally advanced (LA) cSCC are presented. METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for ≤ 2 years. Change in EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EQ-5D-5L scores were exploratory end points. Primary analysis was performed at week 12 to ensure adequate completion/compliance. Descriptive analyses were also conducted through weeks 48 and 75 for the LA and R/M cohorts, respectively. RESULTS: At data cutoff (29 July 2020), mean scores in the LA cohort (n = 47) were stable from baseline to week 12 for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) (-0.27 points [95% confidence interval (CI) -10.93 to 10.39]), physical functioning (-1.29 points [95% CI -8.77 to 6.19]), and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (2.06 [95% CI -7.70 to 11.82]). HRQoL remained stable through week 48 in the LA cohort; 76.6% and 74.5% of patients had improved or stable GHS/QoL and physical functioning scores, respectively. HRQoL continued to show stability or improvement through week 75 in the R/M cohort (n = 99); 71.7% and 64.6% of patients had improved or stable GHS/QoL and physical functioning scores, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab has demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety. The current analysis shows pembrolizumab treatment preserved HRQoL. Collectively, these results support pembrolizumab as standard of care for LA or R/M cSCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03284424-September 15, 2017.

Contribution of MEK Inhibition to BRAF/MEK Inhibitor Combination Treatment of BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Part 2 of the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III COLUMBUS Trial.

PURPOSE: In COLUMBUS part 1, patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice a day (COMBO450), vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily (ENCO300). As previously reported, COMBO450 improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus vemurafenib (part 1 primary end point) and ENCO300 (part 1 key secondary end point; not statistically significant). Part 2, requested by the US Food and Drug Administration, evaluated the contribution of binimetinib by maintaining the same encorafenib dosage in the combination (encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [COMBO300]) and ENCO300 arms. METHODS: In part 2, patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to COMBO300 or ENCO300. ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) data were combined, per protocol, for PFS analysis (key secondary end point) by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Other analyses included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients received COMBO300, and 86 received ENCO300. Per protocol, ENCO300 arms (parts 1 and 2 combined) were also evaluated (n = 280). The median follow-up for ENCO300 was 40.8 months (part 1) and 57.1 months (part 2). The median PFS (95% CI) was 12.9 months (10.9 to 14.9) for COMBO300 versus 9.2 months (7.4 to 11.1) for ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) and 7.4 months (5.6 to 9.2) for ENCO300 (part 2). The hazard ratio (95% CI) for COMBO300 was 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92; two-sided P = .003) versus ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2). The ORR by BIRC (95% CI) was 68% (62 to 74) and 51% (45 to 57) for COMBO300 and ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2), respectively. COMBO300 had greater relative dose intensity and fewer grade 3/4 adverse events than ENCO300. CONCLUSION: COMBO300 improved PFS, ORR, and tolerability compared with ENCO300, confirming the contribution of binimetinib to efficacy and safety.

COLUMBUS 5-year update: a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Here, we summarize the 5-year results from part 1 of the COLUMBUS clinical study, which looked at the combination treatment of encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a specific type of skin cancer called melanoma. Encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®) are medicines used to treat a type of melanoma that has a change in the BRAF gene, called advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Participants with advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma took either encorafenib plus binimetinib together (COMBO group), compared with encorafenib alone (ENCO group) or vemurafenib (ZELBORAF®) alone (VEMU group). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this 5-year update, more participants in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse after 5 years than those in the VEMU and ENCO groups. Patients in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse when they: Had less advanced cancer Were able to do more daily activities Had normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels Had fewer organs with tumors before treatment After treatment, fewer participants in the COMBO group received additional anticancer treatment than participants in the VEMU and ENCO groups. The number of participants who reported severe side effects was similar for each treatment. The side effects caused by the drugs in the COMBO group decreased over time. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, this 5-year update confirmed that people with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma that has spread to other parts of the body and who took encorafenib plus binimetinib were alive for longer without their disease getting worse than those who took vemurafenib or encorafenib alone. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01909453 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Seven-Year Follow-Up of the Phase III KEYNOTE-006 Study: Pembrolizumab Versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Immune checkpoint inhibitors have led to unprecedented prolongation of overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced melanoma. Five-year follow-up of KEYNOTE-006 showed pembrolizumab prolonged survival versus ipilimumab. Efficacy results with 7-year follow-up are presented. At data cutoff (April 19, 2021), median follow-up was 85.3 months (range, 0.03-90.8 months). Median OS was 32.7 months for pembrolizumab versus 15.9 months for ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.83); 7-year OS was 37.8% and 25.3%, respectively. OS HRs favored pembrolizumab regardless of BRAF status or prior BRAF/MEK-inhibitor treatment and prognostic characteristics (elevated lactate dehydrogenase, large tumor size, and brain metastasis). Median modified progression-free survival (mPFS) was 9.4 months for pembrolizumab versus 3.8 months for ipilimumab; 7-year mPFS was 23.8% and 13.3%, respectively. In patients who completed ≥94 weeks of pembrolizumab, the 5-year OS was 92.9% and the 5-year mPFS was 70.1%. The objective response rate with second-course pembrolizumab (n = 16) was 56% (95% CI, 30 to 80) and the 2-year mPFS was 62.5%. These findings confirm that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefit in advanced melanoma.