Efficacy of Vemurafenib in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With BRAF V600 Mutation: An Open-Label, Single-Arm Cohort of the Histology-Independent VE-BASKET Study.

PURPOSE: To study whether BRAF V600 mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may indicate sensitivity to the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib, we included a cohort of patients with NSCLC in the vemurafenib basket (VE-BASKET) study. On the basis of observed early clinical activity, we expanded the cohort of patients with NSCLC. We present results from this cohort. METHODS: This open-label, histology-independent, phase II study included six prespecified cohorts, including patients with NSCLC, and a seventh all-comers cohort. Patients received vemurafenib (960 mg two times per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point of the final analysis was objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Because the prespecified clinical benefit endpoint was met in the initial NSCLC cohort, the cohort was expanded. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with BRAF V600-mutant NSCLC were enrolled and treated: 13% (n = 8) had received no prior systemic therapy, and 87% (n = 54) had received prior therapies. The objective response rate was 37.1% (95% CI, 25.2% to 50.3%) overall, 37.5% (95% CI, 8.5% to 75.5%) in previously untreated patients, and 37.0% (24.3% to 51.3%) in previously treated patients. Median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 9.0 months), and median overall survival was 15.4 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 22.8 months). The most common all-grade adverse event was nausea (40%). The safety profile of vemurafenib was similar to that observed in melanoma studies. CONCLUSION: Vemurafenib showed promising activity in patients with NSCLC harboring BRAF V600 mutations. The safety profile of vemurafenib was similar to previous observations in patients with melanoma. Our results suggest a role for single-agent BRAF inhibition in patients with NSCLC and BRAF V600 mutations.

A Randomized Phase II Trial (TAMIGA) Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Bevacizumab Through Multiple Lines of Treatment for Recurrent Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (BEV) through multiple lines in patients with recurrent glioblastoma who had progressed after first-line treatment with radiotherapy, temozolomide, and BEV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TAMIGA (NCT01860638) was a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in adult patients with glioblastoma. Following surgery, patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma received first-line treatment consisting of radiotherapy plus temozolomide and BEV, followed by six cycles of temozolomide and BEV, then BEV monotherapy until disease progression (PD1). Randomization occurred at PD1 (second line), and patients received lomustine (CCNU) plus BEV (CCNU + BEV) or CCNU plus placebo (CCNU + placebo) until further disease progression (PD2). At PD2 (third line), patients continued BEV or placebo with chemotherapy (investigator's choice). The primary endpoint was survival from randomization. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival in the second and third lines (PFS2 and PFS3) and safety. RESULTS: Of the 296 patients enrolled, 123 were randomized at PD1 (CCNU + BEV, n = 61; CCNU + placebo, n = 62). The study was terminated prematurely because of the high drop-out rate during first-line treatment, implying underpowered inferential testing. The proportion of patients receiving corticosteroids at randomization was similar (BEV 33%, placebo 31%). For the CCNU + BEV and CCNU + placebo groups, respectively, median survival from randomization was 6.4 versus 5.5 months (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.59), median PFS2 was 2.3 versus 1.8 months (stratified HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.00), median PFS3 was 2.0 versus 2.2 months (stratified HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.37-1.33), and median time from randomization to a deterioration in health-related quality of life was 1.4 versus 1.3 months (stratified HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52-1.12). The incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events was 19% (CCNU + BEV) versus 15% (CCNU + placebo). CONCLUSION: There was no survival benefit and no detriment observed with continuing BEV through multiple lines in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Previous research suggested that there may be value in continuing bevacizumab (BEV) beyond progression through multiple lines of therapy. No survival benefit was observed with the use of BEV through multiple lines in patients with glioblastoma who had progressed after first-line treatment (radiotherapy + temozolomide + BEV). No new safety concerns arose from the use of BEV through multiple lines of therapy.

An open-label, multicentre safety study of vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma: final analysis and a validated prognostic scoring system.

BACKGROUND: The oncogenic BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib improves outcomes for patients with advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Vemurafenib is now approved for use in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre study, patients with previously treated or untreated melanoma and the BRAFV600 mutation received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was safety. In a post hoc analysis, overall survival (OS) was analysed according to a prognostic scoring system developed using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, existence of brain metastases and baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase level. The index was validated using data from patients treated with vemurafenib or dacarbazine in three clinical trials and data from patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in two studies. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01307397). RESULTS: Between March 2011 and January 2013, 3224 patients were enrolled, and 3219 patients received ≥1 dose of vemurafenib (safety population); median follow-up time was 33.4 months. Vemurafenib's long-term benefits were confirmed, and no new safety signals identified. The prognostic index showed between-group differences in OS, with tight, non-overlapping confidence intervals. Validation in a pooled group of 666 vemurafenib-treated clinical trial patients revealed a similar pattern; the pattern was similar in 280 patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. CONCLUSIONS: Final results from the vemurafenib safety study confirm vemurafenib's tolerability in BRAFV600 mutation-positive patients and resemble those seen in real-world clinical practice. This index may be useful in patients on combination therapy and as a basis for further work.

BRAF Inhibition in BRAFV600-Mutant Gliomas: Results From the VE-BASKET Study.

PURPOSE: BRAFV600 mutations are frequently found in several glioma subtypes, including pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (PXA) and ganglioglioma and much less commonly in glioblastoma. We sought to determine the activity of vemurafenib, a selective inhibitor of BRAFV600, in patients with gliomas that harbor this mutation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The VE-BASKET study was an open-label, nonrandomized, multicohort study for BRAFV600-mutant nonmelanoma cancers. Patients with BRAFV600-mutant glioma received vemurafenib 960 mg twice per day continuously until disease progression, withdrawal, or intolerable adverse effects. Key end points included confirmed objective response rate by RECIST version 1.1, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (median age, 32 years; 18 female and six male patients) with glioma, including malignant diffuse glioma (n = 11; six glioblastoma and five anaplastic astrocytoma), PXA (n = 7), anaplastic ganglioglioma (n = 3), pilocytic astrocytoma (n = 2), and high-grade glioma, not otherwise specified (n = 1), were treated. Confirmed objective response rate was 25% (95% CI, 10% to 47%) and median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 9.6 months). In malignant diffuse glioma, best response included one partial response and five patients with stable disease, two of whom had disease stabilization that lasted more than 1 year. In PXA, best response included one complete response, two partial responses, and three patients with stable disease. Additional partial responses were observed in patients with pilocytic astrocytoma and anaplastic ganglioglioma (one each). The safety profile of vemurafenib was generally consistent with that of previously published studies. CONCLUSION: Vemurafenib demonstrated evidence of durable antitumor activity in some patients with BRAFV600-mutant gliomas, although efficacy seemed to vary qualitatively by histologic subtype. Additional study is needed to determine the optimal use of vemurafenib in patients with primary brain tumors and to identify the mechanisms driving differential responses across histologic subsets.

Vemurafenib for BRAF V600-Mutant Erdheim-Chester Disease and Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis: Analysis of Data From the Histology-Independent, Phase 2, Open-label VE-BASKET Study.

IMPORTANCE: The histiocytic neoplasms Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) and Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) are highly enriched for BRAF V600 mutations and have been previously shown to be responsive to treatment with vemurafenib, an inhibitor of the BRAF V600 kinase. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of prolonged vemurafenib use in these patients are not defined. Here we analyze the final efficacy and safety data for vemurafenib in patients with ECD and LCH enrolled in the VE-BASKET study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in adults with ECD or LCH enrolled in the VE-BASKET study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The VE-BASKET study was an open-label, nonrandomized, multicohort study for patients with nonmelanoma cancers harboring the BRAF V600 mutation. Patients with BRAF V600-mutant ECD or LCH were enrolled in an "other solid tumor" cohort of the VE-BASKET study, and they were enrolled in the present study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received vemurafenib, 960 mg, twice daily continuously until disease progression, study withdrawal, or occurrence of intolerable adverse effects. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), metabolic response by modified positron-emission tomography (PET) Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/computed tomography (CT), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients from the VE-BASKET trial (22 with ECD, 4 with LCH) were included in the present study (14 women and 12 men; median age, 61 years; age range, 51-74 years). The confirmed ORR was 61.5% (95% CI, 40.6%-79.8%) in the overall cohort and 54.5% (95% CI, 32.2%-75.6%) in patients with ECD. All evaluable patients achieved stable disease or better. The median PFS and OS had not been reached in the overall cohort at study closure despite a median follow-up of 28.8 months; 2-year PFS was 86% (95% CI, 72%-100%), and 2-year OS was 96% (95% CI, 87%-100%). All 15 patients evaluated by FDG-PET/CT achieved a metabolic response, including 12 patients (80%) with a complete metabolic response. The most common adverse events (AEs) in the overall cohort included arthralgia, maculopapular rash, fatigue, alopecia, prolonged QT interval, skin papilloma, and hyperkeratosis. Hypertension and dermatologic AEs occurred at higher rates than those reported in metastatic melanoma. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, vemurafenib had prolonged efficacy in patients with BRAF V600-mutant ECD and LCH and warrants consideration as a new standard of care for these patients.

Open-label, multicentre safety study of vemurafenib in 3219 patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: 2-year follow-up data and long-term responders' analysis.

BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib is an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with metastatic melanoma harbouring BRAFV600 mutations. We assessed the safety of vemurafenib in a large population of patients with few alternative treatment options; we report updated 2-year safety. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre study of vemurafenib (960 mg bid) in patients with previously treated or untreated BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (cobas® 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test). The primary end-point was safety; efficacy end-points were secondary. An exploratory analysis was performed to assess safety outcomes in patients with long duration of response (DOR) (≥12 or ≥24 months). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 32.2 months (95% CI, 31.1-33.2 months), 3079/3219 patients (96%) had discontinued treatment. Adverse events (AEs) were largely consistent with previous reports; the most common all-grade treatment-related AEs were arthralgia (37%), alopecia (25%) and hyperkeratosis (23%); the most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs were squamous cell carcinoma of the skin (8%) and keratoacanthoma (8%). In the exploratory analysis, patients with DOR ≥12 months (n = 287) or ≥24 months (n = 133) were more likely to experience grade 3/4 AEs than the overall population. No new specific safety signals were observed with longer vemurafenib exposure. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years' follow-up, safety was maintained in this large group of patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma who are more representative of routine clinical practice than typical clinical trial populations. These data suggest that long-term vemurafenib treatment is effective and tolerable without the development of new safety signals.

Vemurafenib in Multiple Nonmelanoma Cancers with BRAF V600 Mutations.

BACKGROUND: BRAF V600 mutations occur in various nonmelanoma cancers. We undertook a histology-independent phase 2 "basket" study of vemurafenib in BRAF V600 mutation-positive nonmelanoma cancers. METHODS: We enrolled patients in six prespecified cancer cohorts; patients with all other tumor types were enrolled in a seventh cohort. A total of 122 patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive cancer were treated, including 27 patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. The primary end point was the response rate; secondary end points included progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: In the cohort with non-small-cell lung cancer, the response rate was 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20 to 67) and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 10.8). In the cohort with Erdheim-Chester disease or Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis, the response rate was 43% (95% CI, 18 to 71); the median treatment duration was 5.9 months (range, 0.6 to 18.6), and no patients had disease progression during therapy. There were anecdotal responses among patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, anaplastic thyroid cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, salivary-duct cancer, ovarian cancer, and clear-cell sarcoma and among patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. Safety was similar to that in prior studies of vemurafenib for melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF V600 appears to be a targetable oncogene in some, but not all, nonmelanoma cancers. Preliminary vemurafenib activity was observed in non-small-cell lung cancer and in Erdheim-Chester disease and Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis. The histologic context is an important determinant of response in BRAF V600-mutated cancers. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01524978.).

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. METHODS: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. FINDINGS: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98-1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90-1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03-1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93-1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. FUNDING: Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.