Effect of selumetinib vs chemotherapy on progression-free survival in uveal melanoma: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Uveal melanoma is characterized by mutations in GNAQ and GNA11, resulting in mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway activation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of selumetinib, a selective, non-adenosine triphosphate competitive inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2, in uveal melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial comparing selumetinib vs chemotherapy conducted from August 2010 through December 2013 among 120 patients with metastatic uveal melanoma at 15 academic oncology centers in the United States and Canada. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred one patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive selumetinib, 75 mg orally twice daily on a continual basis (n = 50), or chemotherapy (temozolomide, 150 mg/m2 orally daily for 5 of every 28 days, or dacarbazine, 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 21 days [investigator choice]; n = 51) until disease progression, death, intolerable adverse effects, or withdrawal of consent. After primary outcome analysis, 19 patients were registered and 18 treated with selumetinib without randomization to complete the planned 120-patient enrollment. Patients in the chemotherapy group could receive selumetinib at the time of radiographic progression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Progression-free survival, the primary end point, was assessed as of April 22, 2013. Additional end points, including overall survival, response rate, and safety/toxicity, were assessed as of December 31, 2013. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival among patients randomized to chemotherapy was 7 weeks (95% CI, 4.3-8.4 weeks; median treatment duration, 8 weeks; interquartile range [IQR], 4.3-16 weeks) and among those randomized to selumetinib was 15.9 weeks (95% CI, 8.4-21.1 weeks; median treatment duration, 16.1 weeks; IQR, 8.1-25.3 weeks) (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.71; P < .001). Median overall survival time was 9.1 months (95% CI, 6.1-11.1 months) with chemotherapy and 11.8 months (95% CI, 9.8-15.7 months) with selumetinib (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.41-1.06; P = .09). No objective responses were observed with chemotherapy. Forty-nine percent of patients treated with selumetinib achieved tumor regression, with 14% achieving an objective radiographic response to therapy. Treatment-related adverse events were observed in 97% of patients treated with selumetinib, with 37% requiring at least 1 dose reduction. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this hypothesis-generating study of patients with advanced uveal melanoma, selumetinib compared with chemotherapy resulted in a modestly improved progression-free survival and response rate; however, no improvement in overall survival was observed. Improvement in clinical outcomes was accompanied by a high rate of adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01143402.

Relationship between physician-adjudicated adverse events and patient-reported health-related quality of life in a phase II clinical trial (NCT01143402) of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials commonly use physician-adjudicated adverse event (AE) assessment via the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) for decision-making. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are becoming more frequent in oncology; however, the relationship between physician-adjudicated AE assessment and HRQoL is understudied. METHODS: Data from a phase II trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01143402) where patients with metastatic uveal melanoma were randomized to receive selumetinib, an oral MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy were analyzed. Patients reported HRQoL at baseline, after 1 month, and end of treatment (n = 118), whereas physicians adjudicated AEs via CTCAE. Mean HRQoL scores were compared between patient randomization arms, as well as between those patients who did/did not receive dose modifications. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent had a CTCAE grade ≥1 for at least one treatment-associated AE, with 18% undergoing dose modification due to toxicity. Mean HRQoL scores did not significantly differ at each of the three time points. Patient and physician-adjudicated reports of nausea were significantly correlated at the start (r = 0.31, p < 0.01) and end of treatment (r = 0.42, p < 0.05). There were no significant correlations between need for dose modification and HRQoL scores. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high rate of physician-adjudicated AEs and need for dose modifications with selumetinib, patient-reported HRQoL was not impacted by treatment. Since HRQoL did not differ in the subgroup of patients who received dosage reductions due to AEs, patients may be willing to tolerate select AEs without dose modification (if medically appropriate). More research is needed to determine how to best integrate HRQoL data into clinical trial conduct.

Pilot study of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and interleukin-2 as immune adjuvants for a melanoma peptide vaccine.

Thus far, peptide vaccines used to stimulate tumor-specific immune responses in patients with melanoma have been largely unsuccessful. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and interleukin-2 are immune-potentiating cytokines that have improved vaccine responses in preclinical models. We hypothesized that higher doses of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and addition of low-dose interleukin-2 might augment responses to vaccine antigens. Patients with resected stage II, III, or IV melanoma were treated with vaccines containing three melanoma-associated peptides [MART-1a, gp100(207-217), and survivin], along with 300 or 500 mcg granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in Montanide ISA. Cohorts of patients received low-dose subcutaneous interleukin-2 on days 7-20 after vaccination. Induction of a response was defined as either doubling of cytotoxic T lymphocyte frequency from baseline or increase in frequency from undetectable (<0.05%) to detectable. Leukocyte subsets and plasma cytokines were analyzed before and after vaccination. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses to MART-1a, gp100(207-217), and survivin were induced in 11, 16, and 14 of 19 patients, respectively. Responses were not higher in patients receiving 500 mcg granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor or low-dose interleukin-2 than in patients receiving 300 mcg granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor only. Interleukin-2 treatment (in nine patients) led to increases in natural killer cells and T regulatory cells compared with no interleukin-2 treatment (nine patients). Multiple plasma cytokines were transiently induced during vaccination. Neither increasing the dose of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor nor addition of low-dose interleukin-2 resulted in an increase in the frequency of vaccine-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes to a melanoma peptide vaccine. The increase in T regulatory cells associated with interleukin-2 treatment suggests that interleukin-2 may be immunosuppressive in this setting.