Pembrolizumab Plus Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy in Patients With Unresectable, Locally Advanced, Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase 2 KEYNOTE-799 Nonrandomized Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Administration of pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiation therapy (cCRT) may provide treatment benefit to patients with locally advanced, stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment outcomes and safety of pembrolizumab plus cCRT in stage III NSCLC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The phase 2, nonrandomized, 2-cohort, open-label KEYNOTE-799 study enrolled patients between November 5, 2018, and July 31, 2020, from 52 academic facilities and community-based institutions across 10 countries. As of October 28, 2020, median (range) follow-up was 18.5 (13.6-23.8) months in cohort A and 13.7 (2.9-23.5) months in cohort B. Of 301 patients screened, 216 eligible patients with previously untreated, unresectable, and pathologically/radiologically confirmed stage IIIA/IIIB/IIIC NSCLC with measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in cohort A (squamous/nonsquamous) received 1 cycle (3 weeks) of carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 6 mg/mL/min), paclitaxel (200 mg/m2), and pembrolizumab (200 mg), followed by carboplatin (AUC 2 mg/mL/min) and paclitaxel (45 mg/m2) once weekly for 6 weeks and 2 cycles of pembrolizumab plus standard thoracic radiotherapy. Patients in cohort B (nonsquamous) received 3 cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m2), pemetrexed (500 mg/m2), and pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks and thoracic radiotherapy in cycles 2 and 3. Patients received 14 additional cycles of pembrolizumab. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary end points were objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review and incidence of grade 3 to 5 pneumonitis. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients received treatment in cohort A (76 men [67.9%]; median [range] age, 66.0 [46-90] years; 66 patients [58.9%] with programmed cell death ligand 1 [PD-L1] tumor proportion score ≥1%) and 102 patients received treatment in cohort B (62 men [60.8%]; median [range] age, 64.0 [35-81] years; 40 patients [39.2%] with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥1%). Objective response rate was 70.5% (79 of 112; 95% CI, 61.2%-78.8%) in cohort A and 70.6% (72 of 102; 95% CI, 60.7%-79.2%) in cohort B. Median duration of response was not reached, but 79.7% and 75.6%, respectively, had response duration of 12 months or longer. Grade 3 or higher pneumonitis occurred in 9 of 112 patients (8.0%) in cohort A and 7 of 102 (6.9%) in cohort B. Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 72 of 112 (64.3%) and 51 of 102 (50.0%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this phase 2, nonrandomized, 2-cohort study suggest promising antitumor activity of pembrolizumab plus cCRT and manageable safety in patients with previously untreated, locally advanced, stage III NSCLC.

Molecular testing and targeted therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: Current status and perspectives.

Molecular testing has become a mandatory component of the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) management. The detection of EGFR, BRAF and MET mutations as well as the analysis of ALK, ROS1, RET and NTRK translocations have already been incorporated in the NSCLC diagnostic standards, and the inhibitors of these kinases are in routine clinical use. There are emerging biomarkers, e.g., KRAS G12C substitutions and HER2 activating alterations, which are likely to enter NSCLC guidelines upon the approval of the corresponding drugs. In addition to genetic examination, NSCLCs are usually subjected to the analysis of PD-L1 protein expression in order to direct the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Comprehensive NSCLC testing for multiple predictive markers requires the analysis of distinct biological molecules (DNA, RNA, proteins) and, therefore, the involvement of different analytical platforms (PCR, DNA sequencing, immunohistochemistry, FISH). There are ongoing efforts aimed at the integration of multiple NSCLC molecular assays into a single diagnostic pipeline.

Treating non-small cell lung cancer with selumetinib: an up-to-date drug evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signaling is implicated in tumor development by promoting cell proliferation and other cancer hallmarks. MEK1/2 kinases are up-regulated in the majority of human cancers due to activation of tyrosine kinase receptors, RAS proteins, BRAF kinase, or some other members of the MAPK pathway. Targeting of MEK1/2 kinases may counterbalance cancer progression. AREAS COVERED: The authors analyze the scientific publications relevant to selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) systematically and provide their expert opinion. EXPERT OPINION: Selumetinib is an oral selective allosteric inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2 kinases. Single-agent selumetinib is usually administered in hydrogen sulfate capsules 75 mg twice a day; combination with other therapeutic compounds may or may not require reduced dosing of this drug. The established dose for pediatric patients is 25 mg per square meter twice a day. Selumetinib was extensively evaluated in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Studies utilizing this drug as a monotherapy did not confirm its efficacy toward NSCLC. A phase II trial showed that the addition of selumetinib to docetaxel improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) in chemotherapy-pretreated KRAS-mutated NSCLC patients; however, a subsequent phase III study did not confirm these findings. There are several highly successful non-NSCLC selumetinib trials involving, e.g., patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 related tumors and children with low-grade BRAF-driven gliomas.

A phase Ib study of GSK3052230, an FGF ligand trap in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Background Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) have a fundamental role in cancer. Sequestering FGFs with GSK3052230 (FP-1039) blocks their ability to activate FGFRs while avoiding toxicities associated with small molecule inhibitors of FGFR, including hyperphosphatemia and retinal, nail, and skin toxicities. Methods A multicenter, open-label, phase Ib study evaluated weekly GSK3052230 added to pemetrexed/cisplatin in patients with treatment-naive, unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Doses were escalated according to a 3 + 3 design, followed by cohort expansion at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Endpoints included safety, overall response rate, progression-free survival, and pharmacokinetics. Results 36 patients were dosed at 10, 15, and 20 mg/kg doses of GSK3052230. Three dose-limiting toxicities were observed at 20 mg/kg and one at 15 mg/kg. The MTD was defined as 15 mg/kg and used for cohort expansion. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were nausea (56%), decreased appetite (36%), infusion reactions (36%), decreased neutrophil counts (36%), and fatigue (33%). The confirmed ORR was 39% (95% CI: 23.1-56.5) (14/36 PRs) and 47% had stable disease (17/36), giving a disease control rate of 86%. At 15 mg/kg GSK3052230 (n = 25), the ORR was 44% (95% CI: 24.4-65.1), and the median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-13.4). Four patients had disease control for over 1 year, and three were still ongoing. Conclusion At 15 mg/kg weekly, GSK3052230 was well tolerated in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin and durable responses were observed. Importantly, AEs associated with small molecule inhibitors of FGFR were not observed, as predicted by the unique mechanism of action of this drug.

Patient-reported outcomes from the randomized phase III ALEX study of alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Alectinib demonstrated superior efficacy and a safety profile that compared favorably with crizotinib in treatment-naïve ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III ALEX study. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from ALEX to assess disease burden, treatment-related symptom tolerability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with alectinib versus crizotinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily until disease progression, death, or withdrawal. Pre-specified PRO endpoints were: mean change from baseline in symptoms, HRQoL, and functioning; and time to deterioration (TTD) in cough, dyspnea, chest pain, arm/shoulder pain, fatigue, and a composite of three symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chest pain). PRO data were collected using EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 questionnaires. Raw scores were standardized to a 0-100-point range, with a ≥10-point score change defined as clinically meaningful. TTD was defined as the time from randomization until confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (i.e., a ≥10-point score change from baseline). RESULTS: Baseline completion rates and characteristics were balanced in the PRO-evaluable population (alectinib n = 100, 66%; crizotinib n = 97, 64%). On average, alectinib-treated patients reported clinically meaningful improvements in lung cancer symptoms for longer than crizotinib-treated patients. Between-treatment differences in lung cancer symptoms tended to favor alectinib from 11.1 months (45 weeks) onwards, around the time of median PFS with crizotinib (11.1 months). TTD in lung cancer symptoms was similar between treatment arms, despite longer duration of symptom improvement with alectinib; composite symptom endpoint (hazard ratio 1.10 [95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.68]). Duration of clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL was longer with alectinib versus crizotinib (Week 88 vs. Week 68, respectively). Better patient-reported tolerability was observed with alectinib versus crizotinib on common treatment-related symptoms. CONCLUSION: PRO data support the superior efficacy and tolerability of alectinib relative to crizotinib demonstrated in the ALEX study.

Five-Year Outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with dabrafenib plus trametinib led to long-term benefit in approximately one third of the patients who had unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, MAGE-A3-positive, stage III melanoma (DERMA): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite newly approved treatments, metastatic melanoma remains a life-threatening condition. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic in patients with stage IIIB or IIIC melanoma in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: DERMA was a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done in 31 countries and 263 centres. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had histologically proven, completely resected, stage IIIB or IIIC, MAGE-A3-positive cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator sites were done centrally via the internet. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive up to 13 intramuscular injections of recombinant MAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic; 300 µg MAGE-A3 antigen plus 420 µg CpG 7909 reconstituted in AS01B to a total volume of 0·5 mL), or placebo, over a 27-month period: five doses at 3-weekly intervals, followed by eight doses at 12-weekly intervals. The co-primary outcomes were disease-free survival in the overall population and in patients with a potentially predictive gene signature (GS-positive) identified previously and validated here via an adaptive signature design. The final analyses included all patients who had received at least one dose of study treatment; analyses for efficacy were in the as-randomised population and for safety were in the as-treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00796445. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2008, and Sept 19, 2011, 3914 patients were screened, 1391 randomly assigned, and 1345 started treatment (n=895 for MAGE-A3 and n=450 for placebo). At final analysis (data cutoff May 23, 2013), median follow-up was 28·0 months [IQR 23·3-35·5] in the MAGE-A3 group and 28·1 months [23·7-36·9] in the placebo group. Median disease-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·0-11·9) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·2 months (8·6-14·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·01, 0·88-1·17, p=0·86). In the GS-positive population, median disease-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 5·7-17·6) in the MAGE-A3 group and 11·6 months (5·6-22·3) in the placebo group (HR 1·11, 0·83-1·49, p=0·48). Within the first 31 days of treatment, adverse events of grade 3 or worse were reported by 126 (14%) of 894 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 56 (12%) of 450 patients in the placebo group, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse by 36 (4%) patients given MAGE-A3 vs six (1%) patients given placebo, and at least one serious adverse event by 14% of patients in both groups (129 patients given MAGE-A3 and 64 patients given placebo). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neoplasms (33 [4%] patients in the MAGE-A3 group vs 17 [4%] patients in the placebo group), general disorders and administration site conditions (25 [3%] for MAGE-A3 vs four [<1%] for placebo) and infections and infestations (17 [2%] for MAGE-A3 vs seven [2%] for placebo). No deaths were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: An antigen-specific immunotherapeutic alone was not efficacious in this clinical setting. Based on these findings, development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in melanoma has been stopped. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

Three-year pooled analysis of factors associated with clinical outcomes across dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy phase 3 randomised trials.

AIM: Understanding predictors of long-term benefit with currently available melanoma therapies is the key for optimising individualised treatments. A prior pooled analysis of dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T)-randomised trials (median follow-up, 20.0 months) identified baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and number of organ sites with metastasis as predictive factors for progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival. However, longer-term follow-up analyses are needed to confirm which patients treated with D + T can achieve maximum benefit. METHODS: Three-year landmark data were retrospectively pooled for D + T patients in phase 3 trials (COMBI-d [NCT01584648]; COMBI-v [NCT01597908]). Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed prognostic values of predefined baseline factors; regression tree analysis determined hierarchy and interactions between variables. RESULTS: Long-term pooled outcomes were consistent with individual trial results (N = 563; 3-year PFS, 23%; 3-year OS, 44%). Baseline LDH level and number of organ sites remained strongly associated with and/or predictive of PFS and OS. In addition, baseline sum of lesion diameters (SLD) was identified as a predictor for progression. In the most favourable prognostic group (normal LDH, SLD <66 mm, <3 organ sites; n = 183/563 [33%]), 3-year PFS was 42%. Baseline number of organ sites was also predictive of outcomes in patients with PFS ≥ 6 months. CONCLUSION: Using the largest phase 3 data set available for BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy in melanoma, these results demonstrate that durable responses lasting ≥3 years are possible in subsets of patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving D + T. Although the best predictive model evolved with longer follow-up, factors predicting clinical outcomes with the combination remained consistent with previous analyses.

Comparison of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy with vemurafenib monotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous BRAF Val600-mutation-positive melanoma (COMBI-v): results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In the COMBI-v trial, patients with previously untreated BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma who were treated with the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib had significantly longer overall and progression-free survival than those treated with vemurafenib alone. Here, we present the effects of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), an exploratory endpoint in the COMBI-v study. METHODS: COMBI-v was an open-label, randomised phase 3 study in which 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF Val600 mutation were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice-daily) and trametinib (2 mg once-daily) or vemurafenib monotherapy (960 mg twice-daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. In this pre-specified exploratory analysis, we prospectively assessed HRQoL in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D), and Melanoma Subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), completed at baseline, during study treatment, at disease progression, and after progression. We used a mixed-model, repeated measures ANCOVA to assess differences in mean scores between groups with baseline score as covariate; all p-values are descriptive. The COMBI-v trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01597908, and is ongoing for the primary endpoint, but is not recruiting patients. FINDINGS: From June 4, 2012, to Oct 7, 2013, 1645 patients at 193 centres worldwide were screened for eligibility, and 704 patients were randomly assigned to dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=352) or vemurafenib (n=352). Questionnaire completion rates for both groups were high (>95% at baseline, >80% at follow-up assessments, and >70% at disease progression) with similar HRQoL and symptom scores reported at baseline in both treatment groups for all questionnaires. Differences in mean scores between treatment groups were significant and clinically meaningful in favour of the combination compared with vemurafenib monotherapy for most domains across all three questionnaires during study treatment and at disease progression, including EORTC QLQ-C30 global health (7·92, 7·62, 6·86, 7·47, 5·16, 7·56, and 7·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·005 at week 40), EORTC QLQ-C30 pain (-13·20, -8·05, -8·82, -12·69, -12·46, -11·41, and -10·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001), EQ-5D thermometer scores (7·96, 8·05, 6·83, 11·53, 7·41, 9·08, and 10·51 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·006 at week 32), and FACT-M Melanoma Subscale score (3·62, 2·93, 2·45, 3·39, 2·85, 3·00, and 3·68 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: From the patient's perspective, which integrates not only survival advantage but also disease-associated and adverse-event-associated symptoms, treatment with the combination of a BRAF inhibitor plus a MEK inhibitor (dabrafenib plus trametinib) adds a clear benefit over monotherapy with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and supports the combination therapy as standard of care in this population.

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.

Health-related quality of life impact in a randomised phase III study of the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600 metastatic melanoma.

AIM: To present the impact of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the double-blind, randomised phase III COMBI-d study that investigated the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-d showed significantly prolonged progression-free survival for the combination. METHODS: HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, a generic cancer questionnaire (completed at baseline, during study treatment, at progression and post progression) assessing various dimensions (global health/QoL, functional status, and symptom impact). A mixed-model, repeated-measures analyses of covariance evaluated differences between arms. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rates were >95% at baseline, >85% to week 40 and >70% at disease progression. Baseline scores across both arms were comparable for all dimensions. Global health dimension scores were significantly better at weeks 8, 16 and 24 for patients receiving the combination during treatment and at progression. The majority of functional dimension scores (physical, social, role, emotional and cognitive functioning) trended in favour of the combination. Pain scores were significantly improved and clinically meaningful (6-13 point difference) for patients receiving the combination for all follow-up assessments versus those receiving dabrafenib monotherapy. For other symptom dimensions (nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, and constipation), scores trended in favour of dabrafenib monotherapy. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib provides better preservation of HRQoL and pain improvements versus dabrafenib monotherapy while also delaying progression. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT01584648).

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.).

High efficacy of first-line gefitinib in non-Asian patients with EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several Asian studies demonstrated feasibility of front-line administration of gefitinib for the treatment of non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs) harboring intragenic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. The experience of the use of this EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in non-Asian subjects remains limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included lung adenocarcinoma (AC) patients treated at the N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology (Russia). RESULTS: DNA analysis of 192 consecutive AC revealed 38 (20%) TKI-sensitizing mutations. Presence of the exon 19 deletion (del19) or L858R was strongly correlated with nonsmoking status (smokers: 8/98 (8%); non-smokers: 30/94 (32%); p = 0.00004). The efficacy of first-line gefitinib therapy was evaluated in 25 patients with EGFR-mutated advanced AC. Twelve (48%) cases demonstrated tumor response (1 (4%) complete response, 11 (44%) partial responses; 10/17 (59%) patients with del19 mutation vs. 2/8 (25%) cases with L858R substitution, p = 0.11). The remaining 13 (52%) patients experienced disease stabilization. Median progression-free survival was 8.0 months. Grade 3 toxicity was the maximal adverse event, being observed only in 4 (16%) cases. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib may be considered as an upfront treatment option for EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Down-staging of EGFR mutation-positive advanced lung carcinoma with gefitinib followed by surgical intervention: follow-up of two cases.

BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLC) carrying a mutation in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene show unprecedented sensitivity to gefitinib or erlotinib. CASE REPORTS: We present the follow-up data of 2 EGFR mutation-positive stage IV NSCLC patients who received upfront 250 mg gefitinib daily, then underwent potentially curative surgery, and resumed gefitinib therapy in the adjuvant setting. Patient 1 was diagnosed with a rightsided adenocarcinoma of the upper lobe with multiple metastases to the middle lobe. After 2 months of gefitinib treatment, only a small primary lesion was seen, and a bilobectomy with lymph node dissection was performed. The patient remained disease-free during a scheduled 12-month adjuvant therapy but relapsed 9 weeks after cessation of this treatment. Patient 2 presented with adenocarcinoma of the lower lobe of the right lung and a single metastasis to the left adrenal. After 3 months of receiving gefitinib, the metastasis was no longer detectable, and the primary tumor was significantly reduced. Surgery included lobectomy and adrenalectomy. This patient relapsed with metastasis in the remaining adrenal 4 months after the start of adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib can be used preoperatively for the management of advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. It remains to be established whether surgical intervention indeed renders survival advantage for this category of patients.

Coding polymorphisms in Casp5, Casp8 and DR4 genes may play a role in predisposition to lung cancer.

Apoptosis plays a role in the elimination of DNA-damaged cells thus protecting the host from cancer development. Some data indicate that normal variations within the sequence of apoptotic genes may lead to suboptimal apoptotic capacity and therefore increased cancer risk. We tested 19 coding apoptotic gene SNPs in 2-stage molecular epidemiological study. For the preliminary sorting of SNP candidates, we employed a "comparison of extremes" approach, where 111 patients with highly pronounced LC susceptibility (non-smokers or young-onset light smokers) were analyzed against 110 subjects with the evidence for LC tolerance (elderly tumor-free heavy smokers). Three genotypes demonstrated possible association with LC risk (Leu/Leu-homozygotes for Casp5 Val318Leu versus other genotypes: OR=2.47 (95% CI: 1.07-5.69), p=0.03; His-carriers for Casp8 His302Asp: OR=2.26 (95% CI: 1.18-4.31), p=0.02; Arg-carriers for DR4 Lys441Arg: OR=1.89 (95% CI: 1.05-3.40), p=0.03), and therefore were selected for the validation. The extended study included 2 case-control series, namely subjects from Russia (351 LC cases and 538 controls) and Moldova (296 LC cases and 295 controls). Interestingly, all three candidate genotypes consistently demonstrated OR above 1 both in Russian and in Moldovian groups. Although the combined Mantel-Haenszel analysis yet failed to reach statistical significance (OR=1.22 (95% CI: 0.90-1.65), p=0.21; OR=1.17 (95% CI: 0.92-1.50), p=0.21; OR=1.19 (95% CI: 0.95-1.51), p=0.14, respectively), the obtained data indicate that Casp5, Casp8 and DR4 gene polymorphisms may deserve consideration in large-scale case-control studies of LC risk modifiers.