Short term safety of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines in patients with solid tumors receiving systemic therapy.

BACKGROUND: There are currently three coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to prevent coronavirus infection. However, robust data are unavailable on the adverse events of the vaccines in patients with solid tumor malignancies undergoing systemic therapies. AIM: To evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with solid tumors undergoing systemic therapies. METHODS: The study included patients with solid tumors treated in an academic tertiary care center who received COVID-19 vaccination between January 1, 2021 and August 15, 2021, while undergoing systemic therapy. Electronic medical records were accessed to collect information on patient characteristics, systemic therapies, type of vaccine received, and adverse effects associated with the vaccine administration. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. RESULTS: The analysis included 210 patients; the median age was 70 years, and 51% of patients were female. The most common chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy administered were taxane-based regimens 14.2% (30/210), anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) agents 22.8% (48/210), and antiangiogenic agents 7.1% (15/210), respectively. The most common cancers were gastrointestinal 43.8% (92/210), thoracic 30.4% (64/210), and genitourinary 17.6% (37/210). Patients received the following vaccines: 2 doses of BNT162b2 by Pfizer 52% (110/210), 2 doses of mRNA-1273 by Moderna 42% (89/210), and 1 dose of JNJ-78436735 by Johnson & Johnson 5% (11/210). At least 1 AE attributable to the vaccine was observed in 37 patients 17.6% (37/210). The total number of AEs attributable to vaccines was 62: Fifty-three grade 1 and nine grade 2. Most adverse events occurred after the second dose 59.7% (37/62). The most frequent grade 1 AEs included fatigue 17% (9/53), fever 15% (8/53), injection site reaction 13.2% (7/53), and chills 9.4% (5/53). The most frequent grade 2 AEs were fatigue 33.3% (3/9) and generalized weakness 22.2% (2/9). Therapy was delayed by 2 wk because of the AEs possibly related to vaccine administration in 3 patients 1.4% (3/210). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that the adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination are infrequent, mild, and rarely delay treatment in patients with solid tumors receiving systemic therapies.

Real-world treatment patterns and overall survival in BRAF-mutant melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

Aim: To assess overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma by first-line (1L) targeted therapy (TT) or checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) use, second-line (2L) TT or CPI use, and treatment sequence. Patients & methods: Advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma patients treated with 1L CPI or TT were selected from a real-world, electronic health record-derived database. Results: CPI was associated with improved survival after adjustment for potential confounders (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.87]). Median OS was similar between 2L therapies and among likely treatment sequences. Conclusion: This real-world study demonstrated a survival benefit with 1L CPI versus TT. Analyses of 2L and treatment sequences were unable to detect or rule out clinically relevant differences in OS.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are the preferred treatment options for patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma, with more patients starting first-line treatment with checkpoint inhibitors in the real world. Our study suggests that starting treatment with checkpoint inhibitors instead of targeted therapies may improve survival; however, we were unable to determine the optimal sequence of treatments that patients should be given. The findings of this study highlight the need for further investigation into the optimal treatment sequence with checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Theragnostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and Ki67 in BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma (BRIM-3 trial).

We conducted a retrospective tumor tissue analysis as part of the BRIM3 trial to evaluate the theragnostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and melanoma cell proliferation. Using manual semi-quantitative analyses, we assessed the density of TILs by pathology review of tissue sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E TIL score) and by immunohistochemistry (IHC) with an anti-CD8 antibody (CD8 TIL score); also, the melanoma cell proliferation by IHC with an anti-Ki67 antibody. Three hundred and fifty-three, 280, and 172 patients' tumor tissue samples were available for H&E, CD8, and Ki67 IHC analysis, respectively. There was no association between high (2+, 3+) peritumoral and intratumoral H&E and/or TIL CD8 score or high Ki67 proliferation index (>15%) with serum LDH level and stage IV melanoma. Neither high Ki67 proliferation, nor high peritumoral and/or intratumoral TIL score was significantly associated with objective antitumor response in any treatment arm. High intratumoral and high peritumoral CD8 TIL score was significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS) only in DTIC-treated patients (P = 0.002 and 0.037, respectively); in vemurafenib-treated patients, high intratumoral and/or peritumoral CD8 TIL score was not significant (log-rank P = 0.053 and 0.062, respectively). Nevertheless, a high peritumoral CD8 TIL score was a significant predictor of PFS and overall survival after adjustment for age, sex, serum LDH, ECOG performance status, and treatment arm in a Cox regression model. Vemurafenib does not only benefit patients bearing brisk TILs; even vemurafenib-treated patients with absent and/or non-brisk TILs tend to have longer PFS compared to DTIC-treated patients with brisk TILs. High peritumoral CD8 TIL score is a favorable prognostic factor independent of well-established AJCC staging factors.

Economic and health care resource utilization burden of central nervous system metastases in patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic melanoma, central nervous system (CNS) involvement is associated with poor prognosis, increased costs, and higher health care resource utilization (HCRU); however, previous cost-estimate studies were conducted before widespread use of targeted therapies and immunotherapies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs and HCRU in patients with metastatic melanoma with and without CNS metastases in the current treatment era following introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapies. METHODS: This real-world retrospective cohort study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims database to estimate and compare costs and HCRU in patients with metastatic melanoma by presence or absence of CNS metastases between January 2011 and June 2019. Patients with at least 2 melanoma claims, at least 2 metastatic claims, and continuous enrollment at least 6 months before and at least 1 month after first metastatic diagnosis were included. Mean per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs are reported in 2019 US dollars. Analyses were also conducted by time period of first metastatic diagnosis: 2011-2014 (reflecting BRAF inhibitor monotherapy and anti-CTLA-4 therapy) and 2015-2019 (reflecting availability of BRAF and MEK inhibitor combinations and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies). RESULTS: Of 4,078 patients, 1,253 (30.7%) had CNS metastases. Patients with CNS metastases were more likely to receive any treatment (89.1% vs 58.9%; P < 0.001), including systemic treatment (73.3% vs 55.4%; P < 0.001) and radiation (65.8% vs 11.8%; P < 0.001), and to have brain imaging any time after metastatic diagnosis (98.3% vs 67.2%; P < 0.001). In patients with CNS metastases, 40.0% had dexamethasone 4 mg within 30 days of CNS metastatic diagnosis. Patients with CNS metastases incurred higher total mean PPPM costs ($29,953 vs $14,996; P < 0.001). The largest contributors were total radiology ($2,351 vs $1,110), targeted therapies ($2,499 vs $638), and immunotherapies ($7,398 vs $5,036). HCRU and costs were higher in patients with vs without CNS metastases regardless of time period of first metastatic diagnosis. In patients with CNS metastases, use of any systemic treatment was increased in 2015-2019 vs 2011-2014 (81.2% vs 64.5%; P < 0.001), including chemotherapy (68.1% vs 50.0%; P < 0.001), immunotherapy (60.9% vs 30.1%; P < 0.001), and/or targeted therapies (32.7% vs 27.4%; P = 0.05). Mean total PPPM costs for patients with CNS metastases increased from $28,183 in 2011-2014 to $31,569 in 2015-2019 (P < 0.001); main drivers were immunotherapies and targeted therapies. CONCLUSIONS: CNS metastases occur frequently in patients with metastatic melanoma and are associated with significantly increased economic burden compared with patients without CNS metastases; the largest contributors to total costs in the current treatment era are radiology, targeted therapies, and immunotherapies. Brain imaging remains underused, and there is an opportunity to improve outcomes through early detection of CNS metastases, potentially reducing the high HCRU and costs associated with CNS metastases. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. Seetasith and Lee are employed by and report stock ownership in Genentech, Inc. Bartley and McKenna were employed by Genentech, Inc., at the time of this study and report stock ownership. Tawbi reports grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, Novartis, BMS, and Merck; grants from GSK and Celgene; and personal fees from Eisai, outside the submitted work. Kent, Burton, and Haydu have nothing to disclose. The results of this study were presented in part at the AMCP Nexus 2020 Virtual Meeting, October 19-23, 2020.

Real-world assessment and treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma: Findings from the RegiSONIC disease registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding real-world treatment patterns and their effectiveness and safety in patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma, including patients not typically represented in clinical trials. The purpose of the current study was to describe how clinicians diagnose and treat locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in the United States. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational registry study included patients with newly diagnosed, Hedgehog pathway inhibitor-naive locally advanced basal cell carcinoma without basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome (n = 433) treated at 75 US academic and community practices, including dermatology, Mohs surgery, and medical oncology sites. The main outcomes of this study were treatment patterns and associated effectiveness and safety for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma in real-world settings. RESULTS: Determination of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma was mainly based on lesion size (79.6% of patients), histopathology (54.3%), extent of involvement (49.0%), and location (46.2%). Within 90 days of determination of locally advanced disease, 115 patients (26.6%) received vismodegib, 251 (58.0%) received surgery/other (non-vismodegib) treatment, and 67 (15.5%) had not yet received treatment (observation). Vismodegib-treated patients had a higher prevalence of high-risk clinical features predictive for locoregional recurrence than those with non-vismodegib treatment or observation. Clinical response rate was 85.1% with vismodegib and 94.9% with non-vismodegib treatment (primarily surgery). The most common adverse events with vismodegib were ageusia/dysgeusia, muscle spasms, alopecia, and weight loss. Rates of cutaneous squamous cell cancers were comparable between vismodegib and non-vismodegib treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective observational study offers insight on real-world practice, treatment selection, and outcomes for a nationally representative sample of US patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma. For patients with lesions that were not amenable to surgery, vismodegib treatment was associated with effectiveness and safety that was consistent with that observed in clinical trials.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost of Care in Patients With Periocular Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-World Study.

PURPOSE: To date, there are no studies on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs for treating periocular basal cell carcinoma (pBCC). We investigated real-world HRU and costs of patients with limited versus extensive pBCC. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cost analysis. METHODS: Administrative claims database was mined for basal cell carcinoma (BCC)-related claims from January 2011 to December 2018. Patients had ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient nondiagnostic claims for pBCC ≥30 days apart, ≥6 months of continuous enrollment in a health plan before the index date, and ≥18 months of continuous enrollment after the index date. Patients were categorized by disease severity (limited or extensive) using Current Procedural Terminology codes. A total of 1368 patients were propensity matched 1:1 for limited and extensive pBCC (n = 684 each). Outcomes were cost and HRU measures during the 18-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Patients with extensive disease had a higher number of outpatient visits (32.47 vs 28.81; P < .0001), radiation therapies (0.53 vs 0.17; P = .001), surgeries (1.82 vs 1.24; P < .001), days between first and last surgery (40.82 vs 16.51 days; P < .001), outpatient pBCC claims (3.89 vs 3.38; P < .001), and days between pBCC claims (170.43 vs 144.01 days; P < .001). Patients with extensive disease incurred higher total all-cause costs ($36,986.10 vs $31,893.13; P = .02), outpatient costs ($20,450.26 vs $16,885.87; P = .005), radiation therapy costs ($314.28 vs $89.81; P = .01), and surgery costs ($3,697.08 vs $2,585.80; P < .001) than patients with limited disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with extensive pBCC incurred higher costs, greater HRU, and longer time between first and last surgery versus patients with limited pBCC. Early diagnosis and early treatment of pBCC have economic benefits.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with melanoma and central nervous system metastases: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma and central nervous system (CNS) metastases have poor survival outcomes. We investigated real-world treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) of patients with melanoma and CNS metastases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis utilizing a nationwide de-identified electronic health record-derived database was undertaken in patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma between January 2011 and September 2018. Patients with any visit ≤90 days of metastatic diagnosis and with confirmed CNS metastases were included. RESULTS: Of 3473 patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma, 791 patients with confirmed CNS metastases were identified and included in this analysis. Synchronous CNS metastasis (≤30 days of metastatic diagnosis) was associated with longer median OS than metachronous CNS metastasis (>30 days after metastatic diagnosis, 0.58 vs 0.42 years). Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) was the most common treatment (40.5%) alone or in combination with other local or systemic therapies, being more frequent in patients diagnosed in 2015+ versus 2011-2014 (44.1% vs 35.5%, respectively). The most common systemic treatment was immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs; 30.5%), predominantly anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) alone (2011-2014) and anti-programmed death-1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 (2015+). Median OS was longest in SRS-treated patients (1.17 years) regardless of number of CNS metastases. Median OS for SRS-treated patients increased from 0.83 years (2011-2014) to 1.75 years (2015+). In multivariable analysis, the effect of SRS remained significant after adjustment for sex, race, intracranial and extracranial disease burden, and timing of CNS metastases. Interaction testing to examine potential synergy between SRS/whole-brain radiation therapy and ICIs found no significant interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in treatment, patients with melanoma and CNS metastases have poor survival outcomes. Prevalence of SRS increased over time and was associated with improved outcomes.

Efficacy, Safety, and Biomarker Analysis of Combined PD-L1 (Atezolizumab) and VEGF (Bevacizumab) Blockade in Advanced Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma.

Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) is a rare but aggressive malignancy with limited treatment options. VEGF inhibition enhances efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors by reworking the immunosuppressive tumor milieu. Efficacy and safety of combined PD-L1 (atezolizumab) and VEGF (bevacizumab) blockade (AtezoBev) was assessed in 20 patients with advanced and unresectable MPeM with progression or intolerance to prior platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate per RECISTv1.1 by independent radiology review was 40% [8/20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 19.1-64.0] with median response duration of 12.8 months. Six (75%) responses lasted for >10 months. Progression-free and overall survival at one year were 61% (95% CI, 35-80) and 85% (95% CI, 60-95), respectively. Responses occurred notwithstanding low tumor mutation burden and PD-L1 expression status. Baseline epithelial-mesenchymal transition gene expression correlated with therapeutic resistance/response (r = 0.80; P = 0.0010). AtezoBev showed promising and durable efficacy in patients with advanced MPeM with an acceptable safety profile, and these results address a grave unmet need for this orphan disease. SIGNIFICANCE: Efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab vis-à-vis response rates and survival in advanced peritoneal mesothelioma previously treated with chemotherapy surpassed outcomes expected with conventional therapies. Biomarker analyses uncovered epithelial-mesenchymal transition phenotype as an important resistance mechanism and showcase the value and feasibility of performing translationally driven clinical trials in rare tumors.See related commentary by Aldea et al., p. 2674.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2659.

5-Year Outcomes with Cobimetinib plus Vemurafenib in BRAFV600 Mutation-Positive Advanced Melanoma: Extended Follow-up of the coBRIM Study.

PURPOSE: The randomized phase III coBRIM study (NCT01689519) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. We report long-term follow-up of coBRIM, with at least 5 years since the last patient was randomized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily on days 1-21 in each 28-day cycle) or placebo in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). RESULTS: 495 patients were randomized to cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (n = 247) or placebo plus vemurafenib (n = 248). Median follow-up was 21.2 months for cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 16.6 months for placebo plus vemurafenib. Median OS was 22.5 months (95% CI, 20.3-28.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 17.4 months (95% CI, 15.0-19.8) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year OS rates were 31% and 26%, respectively. Median PFS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.5-14.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.5) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year PFS rates were 14% and 10%, respectively. OS and PFS were longest in patients with normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase levels and low tumor burden, and in those achieving complete response. The safety profile remained consistent with previously published reports. CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up of coBRIM confirms the long-term clinical benefit and safety profile of cobimetinib plus vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma.

Impact of initial treatment and prognostic factors on postprogression survival in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with dacarbazine or vemurafenib ± cobimetinib: a pooled analysis of four clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify patient subgroups with distinct postprogression overall survival (ppOS) outcomes and investigate the impact of original treatment assignment and initial postprogression treatment (ppRx) on ppOS. METHODS: Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was performed to model relationships between prespecified covariates and ppOS in patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma who had experienced progressive disease (PD) following treatment with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib, vemurafenib monotherapy, or dacarbazine in the BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM studies. Prognostic subgroups identified by RPA were then applied to pooled treatment cohorts. The primary endpoint was ppOS, defined as time from first PD to death from any cause. RESULTS: RPA identified baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), baseline disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at PD, and ppRx as significant prognostic factors for ppOS. Median ppOS was longest in patients with normal baseline LDH, stage M1c disease at baseline, and ppRx with immunotherapy or targeted therapy (12.2 months; 95% CI 10.3-16.1) and shortest in those with elevated baseline LDH > 2 × upper limit of normal (2.3 months; 95% CI 1.8-2.7). Original treatment assignment did not impact ppOS. Across treatment cohorts, patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy after PD had better ppOS than those given other treatments. CONCLUSION: A combination of factors at baseline (LDH, disease stage) and PD (performance status, ppRx) impact ppOS outcomes. ppRx with immunotherapy or targeted therapy is an independent prognostic factor for improved overall survival following progression regardless of original treatment. Trial registration The trials included in this analysis are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00949702 (BRIM-2), NCT01006980 (BRIM-3), NCT01271803 (BRIM-7), and NCT01689519 (coBRIM).

Survival outcomes in an older US population with advanced melanoma and central nervous system metastases: SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: Central nervous system (CNS) metastasis is common in advanced melanoma patients. New treatment options have improved overall prognosis, but information is lacking for patients with CNS metastases. We investigated treatment patterns and survival outcomes in older melanoma patients with and without CNS metastases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of SEER-Medicare, a population-based linked database, was undertaken in patients aged > 65 years with advanced melanoma diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 and followed until 2013. RESULTS: A total of 2522 patients were included. CNS metastases were present in 24.8% of patients at initial metastatic diagnosis; 16.5% developed CNS metastases during follow-up. Chemotherapy was the most common treatment regardless of CNS metastases. Overall survival (OS) was better for patients without CNS metastases (median, 9.5 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8-10.2) vs patients with CNS metastases (3.63 months; 95% CI, 3.4-3.9). Among patients with CNS metastases, median OS for targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy was 6 (95% CI, 2.5-9.6), 5.5 (95% CI, 3.8-7.5), and 4.5 (95% CI, 3.8-5.4) months, respectively, vs 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1-2.7) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) months for local radiotherapy and no treatment, respectively. Stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated higher OS vs whole-brain radiation therapy (median, 4.98 [95% CI, 3.5-7.5] vs 2.4 [95% CI, 2.1-2.7] months). CONCLUSION: Patients with CNS metastases from melanoma remain a population with high unmet medical need despite recent advances in treatment. Systemic treatments (eg, BRAF-targeted therapy and immunotherapy) and stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated meaningful but modest improvements in OS. Further explorations of combinations of radiotherapy, BRAF-targeted therapies, and immunotherapies are needed.

Impact of depth of response on survival in patients treated with cobimetinib ± vemurafenib: pooled analysis of BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7 and coBRIM.

BACKGROUND: This pooled analysis investigated the prognostic value of depth of response in two cohorts of patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib. METHODS: The data were pooled from BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7 and coBRIM. Association of depth of response with survival was estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for clinically relevant covariates. Depth of response was analysed in previously identified prognostic subgroups based on disease characteristics and gene signatures. RESULTS: Greater tumour reduction and longer time to maximal response were significantly associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when evaluated as continuous variables. Patients with the deepest responses had long-lasting survival outcomes (median PFS: 14 months; OS: 32 months with vemurafenib; not estimable with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib). Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib improved depth of response versus vemurafenib monotherapy regardless of other prognostic factors, including gene signatures. CONCLUSIONS: Greater depth of response was associated with improved survival, supporting its utility as a measure of treatment efficacy in melanoma and further evaluation of its incorporation into existing prognostic models. Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib improved outcomes across quartiles of response regardless of prognostic factors or gene signatures and provided durable survival benefits in patients with deep responses.

Effect of concomitant dosing with acid-reducing agents and vemurafenib dose on survival in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib ± cobimetinib.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the impact of concomitant acid-reducing agents (ARAs) and vemurafenib dose on the efficacy of vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib. METHODS: Data were pooled for patients treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib in the BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM studies. The primary end-points were progression-free survival and overall survival across patient subgroups defined by vemurafenib dose (full vs reduced) and concomitant ARA use (yes vs no). Objective response rate (ORR) was also analysed. Steady-state vemurafenib concentrations were evaluated according to vemurafenib dosing and concomitant ARA use across treatment cohorts in a subset of patients from BRIM-7 and coBRIM with available concentration data. RESULTS: Efficacy analyses included 920 patients: 641 in the vemurafenib cohort and 279 in the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib cohort. Overall, no significant differences in survival outcomes were observed across subgroups according to vemurafenib dose and ARA use, with or without adjustment for known prognostic covariates, in both treatment cohorts. ORR was also similar across subgroups in both treatment cohorts. Steady-state vemurafenib concentrations were analysed in 389 patients (193 in the vemurafenib cohort and 196 in the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib cohort) and were generally similar across vemurafenib dose subgroups, regardless of ARA use in both treatment cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this retrospective pooled analysis suggest that ARAs can be used concomitantly with vemurafenib, alone or in combination with cobimetinib, without compromising the efficacy of vemurafenib.

Efficacy, Toxicity, and Infectious Complications in Ruxolitinib-Treated Patients with Corticosteroid-Refractory Graft-versus-Host Disease after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

Corticosteroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease (SR-GVHD) remains a significant source of morbidity after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. No standard therapy exists in this setting; however, recent studies have demonstrated a very promising role for ruxolitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor. With increasing evidence of efficacy for SR-GVHD, limited data exist describing complications of ruxolitinib use, specifically infectious complications during use in SR-GVHD. In this study we report outcomes and infectious complications at our institution with ruxolitinib use. Overall, 43 patients were treated with ruxolitinib for SR-GVHD, 19 for acute SR-GVHD and 24 for chronic SR-GVHD. With respect to acute SR-GVHD, 15 patients had grade III acute GVHD and 4 patients had grade IV acute GVHD. At 28 days, a response rate of 84% was detected. With respect to chronic SR-GVHD, 16 patients had moderate refractory disease and 8 had severe refractory disease. At around 28 days, a 63% response rate was detected. Overall, 42% of patients (n = 18) treated with ruxolitinib had a documented infectious event. Infectious events were significantly more common among patients treated for acute SR-GVHD (P < .005). Among patients treated for acute SR-GVHD, both viral (n = 11) and bacterial (n = 10) events were frequently encountered. Cytomegalovirus reactivation was detected in 4 patients without organ involvement in any patient. Bacteremia was the most common bacterial event (n = 8), and 2 patients died after development of bacteremia. Only 5 of 24 patients treated with ruxolitinib for chronic SR-GVHD developed infectious complications after initiation of therapy. Nearly an even number of viral (n = 3) and bacterial (n = 4) were detected. This study supports the use of ruxolitinib in SR-GVHD, with impressive responses observed in both acute and chronic SR-GVHD. Infectious complications were particularly frequent among patients treated for acute SR-GVHD, and nearly all these patients were concurrently on high-dose steroids while on ruxolitinib. This study suggests careful monitoring for viral reactivation is required for patients initiated on ruxolitinib, supports the role of continuing prophylactic antimicrobial measures in ruxolitinib-treated GVHD patients, and raises the question of whether bacterial prophylaxis should be considered among patients initiated on ruxolitinib for acute SR-GVHD, particularly while on high-dose steroids.

Correction to: Long-term safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: final update of the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study.

Following publication of the original article [1], it was reported that the legend for Fig. 1 was incomplete. The complete figure legend is.

Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma in the Gallbladder Fossa Complicated by a Duodenal Fistula.

Cancer of unknown primary is defined as a metastatic disease present in the absence of an identifiable primary site of origin. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of unknown primary is a relatively uncommon subtype that usually involves metastases to the cervical or inguinal lymph nodes. We present a rare case of SCC of unknown primary metastasizing to the gallbladder fossa and creating a duodenal fistula. This case highlights the rarity of SCCs in the gallbladder region and the risks posed by chemotherapy in patients with gastrointestinal fistulas.

Modeled Prognostic Subgroups for Survival and Treatment Outcomes in BRAF V600-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma: Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Prognostic models may provide insight into clinical trial results and inform the clinical management of patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma. Objective: To identify subgroups with distinct survival outcomes based on clinical and genomic characteristics and to assess survival in identified prognostic subgroups across cohorts treated with dacarbazine, vemurafenib, or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective and exploratory recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) modeled associations between prespecified covariates and survival outcomes using pooled data from the BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM studies. Interventions: Dacarbazine, vemurafenib, or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib. Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The RPA included 1365 patients (783 men; 57.4%). Of these, 1032 (75.6%) were older than 65 years; 310 received cobimetinib plus vemurafenib; 717, vemurafenib alone; and 338, dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 14.1 months (interquartile range, 6.3-28.3 months). In the RPA that included all patients, baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), presence or absence of liver metastases, and baseline sum of longest diameters of target lesions (SLDs) were significant prognostic factors for PFS: Median PFS was longest in patients with lower LDH (≤2 × upper limit of normal [ULN]), ECOG PS 0, and shorter SLD (≤44 mm) (11.1 months; 95% CI, 7.0-18.4 months), and shortest in those with elevated LDH (>2 × ULN) (3.5 months; 95% CI, 3.0-3.8 months). The subgroup with normal baseline LDH and no liver metastases had the longest median OS (22.7 months; 95% CI, 20.3-27.2 months). Similar PFS trends were observed when these prognostic subgroups were applied to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib, vemurafenib alone, and dacarbazine cohorts. Baseline LDH, ECOG PS, and SLD were significant prognostic factors for OS: Median OS was longest in patients with normal LDH and shorter SLD (≤45 mm) (27.2 months; 95% CI, 22.1-32.1 months) and shortest in those with elevated LDH (>2 × ULN) (6.0 months; 95% CI, 5.3-6.8 months). Among patients in the most favorable subgroup (normal LDH and SLD ≤45 mm), 3-year OS rates were 53.3% (95% CI, 39.5%-67.1%) in the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib cohort, 35.6% (95% CI, 27.4%-43.8%) in the vemurafenib cohort, and 35.6% (95% CI, 24.8%-46.4%) in the dacarbazine cohort. Among patients with available gene expression data, RPA identified gene signature as a significant prognostic factor for PFS in those with normal LDH; 3-year PFS rates were 21.9%, (95% CI, 15.4%-28.4%) and 8.8% (95% CI, 3.6%-14.1%) in immune and cell cycle signature, respectively. The RPA for OS did not identify gene signature as a significant factor. Conclusions and Relevance: Baseline LDH, ECOG PS, disease burden, and gene signature appear to be key determinants of survival outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors. These results are consistent with survival benefits of cobimetinib plus vemurafenib over vemurafenib alone observed in the coBRIM study.

Association of body-mass index and outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy: a retrospective, multicohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has been linked to increased mortality in several cancer types; however, the relation between obesity and survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between body-mass index (BMI) and progression-free survival or overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma who received targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed independent cohorts of patients with metastatic melanoma assigned to treatment with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy in randomised clinical trials and one retrospective study of patients treated with immunotherapy. Patients were classified according to BMI, following the WHO definitions, as underweight, normal, overweight, or obese. Patients without BMI and underweight patients were excluded. The primary outcomes were the associations between BMI and progression-free survival or overall survival, stratified by treatment type and sex. We did multivariable analyses in the independent cohorts, and combined adjusted hazard ratios in a mixed-effects meta-analysis to provide a precise estimate of the association between BMI and survival outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed with meta-regression analyses. Analyses were done on the predefined intention-to-treat population in the randomised controlled trials and on all patients included in the retrospective study. FINDINGS: The six cohorts consisted of a total of 2046 patients with metastatic melanoma treated with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy between Aug 8, 2006, and Jan 15, 2016. 1918 patients were included in the analysis. Two cohorts containing patients from randomised controlled trials treated with targeted therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib [n=599] and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib [n=240]), two cohorts containing patients treated with immunotherapy (one randomised controlled trial of ipilimumab plus dacarbazine [n=207] and a retrospective cohort treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab [n=331]), and two cohorts containing patients treated with chemotherapy (two randomised controlled trials of dacarbazine [n=320 and n=221]) were classified according to BMI as normal (694 [36%] patients), overweight (711 [37%]), or obese (513 [27%]). In the pooled analysis, obesity, compared with normal BMI, was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma (average adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·66-0·90] for progression-free survival and 0·74 [0·58-0·95] for overall survival). The survival benefit associated with obesity was restricted to patients treated with targeted therapy (HR 0·72 [0·57-0·91] for progression-free survival and 0·60 [0·45-0·79] for overall survival) and immunotherapy (HR 0·75 [0·56-1·00] and 0·64 [0·47-0·86]). No associations were observed with chemotherapy (HR 0·87 [0·65-1·17, pinteraction=0·61] for progression-free survival and 1·03 [0·80-1·34, pinteraction=0·01] for overall survival). The association of BMI with overall survival for patients treated with targeted and immune therapies differed by sex, with inverse associations in men (HR 0·53 [0·40-0·70]), but no associations observed in women (HR 0·85 [0·61-1·18, pinteraction=0·03]). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that in patients with metastatic melanoma, obesity is associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with those outcomes in patients with normal BMI, and that this association is mainly seen in male patients treated with targeted or immune therapy. These results have implications for the design of future clinical trials for patients with metastatic melanoma and the magnitude of the benefit found supports further investigation of the underlying mechanism of these associations. FUNDING: ASCO/CCF Young Investigator Award, ASCO/CCF Career Development Award, MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Melanoma Moonshot Program, MDACC Melanoma SPORE, and the Dr Miriam and Sheldon G Adelson Medical Research Foundation.

Long-term safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma: final update of the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the ERIVANCE BCC trial, vismodegib, the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, showed objective response rates (ORRs) by independent review facility (IRF) of 30% and 43% in metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) and locally advanced BCC (laBCC), respectively. ORRs by investigator review were 45% (mBCC) and 60% (laBCC). Herein, we present long-term safety and final investigator-assessed efficacy results in patients with mBCC or laBCC. METHODS: One hundred four patients with measurable advanced BCC received oral vismodegib 150 mg once daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was IRF-assessed ORR. Secondary end points included ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: At data cutoff (39 months after completion of accrual), 8 patients were receiving the study drug (69 patients in survival follow-up). Investigator-assessed ORR was 48.5% in the mBCC group (all partial responses) and 60.3% in the laBCC group (20 patients had complete response and 18 patients had partial response). ORRs were comparable across patient subgroups, including aggressive histologic subtypes (eg, infiltrative BCC). Median DOR was 14.8 months (mBCC) and 26.2 months (laBCC). Median OS was 33.4 months in the mBCC cohort and not estimable in the laBCC cohort. Adverse events remained consistent with clinical experience. Thirty-three deaths (31.7%) were reported; none were related to vismodegib. CONCLUSIONS: This long-term update of the ERIVANCE BCC trial demonstrated durability of response, efficacy across patient subgroups, and manageable long-term safety of vismodegib in patients with advanced BCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered prospectively with Clinicaltrials.gov , number NCT00833417 on January 30, 2009.

BRAFV600 mutations in solid tumors, other than metastatic melanoma and papillary thyroid cancer, or multiple myeloma: a screening study.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the BRAF gene have been implicated in several human cancers. The objective of this screening study was to identify patients with solid tumors (other than metastatic melanoma or papillary thyroid cancer) or multiple myeloma harboring activating BRAFV600 mutations for enrollment in a vemurafenib clinical study. METHODS: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples were collected and sent to a central laboratory to identify activating BRAFV600 mutations by bidirectional direct Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: Overall incidence of BRAFV600E mutation in evaluable patients (n=548) was 3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-4.7): 11% in colorectal tumors (n=75), 6% in biliary tract tumors (n=16), 3% in non-small cell lung cancers (n=71), 2% in other types of solid tumors (n=180), and 3% in multiple myeloma (n=31). There were no BRAFV600 mutations in this cohort of patients with ovarian tumors (n=68), breast cancer (n=86), or prostate cancer (n=21). CONCLUSION: This multicenter, national screening study confirms previously reported incidences of BRAFV600 mutations from single-center studies. Patients identified with BRAFV600 mutations were potentially eligible for enrollment in the VE-BASKET study.