Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma: primary results from the randomized phase III IMspire170 study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggest that the combination of MEK inhibitors and immunotherapeutic agents may result in improved efficacy in melanoma. We evaluated whether combining MEK inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition was more efficacious than immune checkpoint inhibition alone in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600 wild-type advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: IMspire170 was an international, randomized, open-label, phase III study. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive cobimetinib (60 mg, days 1-21) plus anti-programmed death-ligand 1 atezolizumab (840 mg every 2 weeks) in 28-day cycles or anti-programmed death-1 pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) alone until loss of clinical benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between 11 December 2017, and 29 January 2019, 446 patients were randomized to receive cobimetinib plus atezolizumab (n = 222) or pembrolizumab (n = 224). Median follow-up was 7.1 months [interquartile range (IQR) 4.8-9.9] for cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and 7.2 months (IQR 4.9-10.1) for pembrolizumab. Median PFS was 5.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8-7.2] with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab versus 5.7 months (95% CI 3.7-9.6) with pembrolizumab [stratified hazard ratio 1.15 (95% CI 0.88-1.50); P = 0.30]. Hazard ratios for PFS were consistent across prespecified subgroups. In exploratory biomarker analyses, higher tumor mutational burden was associated with improved clinical outcomes in both treatment arms. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) were increased blood creatine phosphokinase (10.0% with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab versus 0.9% with pembrolizumab), diarrhea (7.7% versus 1.9%), rash (6.8% versus 0.9%), hypertension (6.4% versus 3.7%), and dermatitis acneiform (5.0% versus 0). Serious AEs occurred in 44.1% of patients with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and 20.8% with pembrolizumab. CONCLUSION: Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab did not improve PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with BRAFV600 wild-type advanced melanoma.

A Prospective Study of Intraarterial Infusion Chemotherapy in Advanced Wild-Type BRAF Melanoma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Treatment strategies for advanced cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients, resistant or not treatable with novel target and immunotherapeutic drugs, remain a significant challenge, particularly for patients with unresectable stage IIIC/D disease localized to inferior limbs and pelvis, for whom specific outcomes are rarely considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective study of multidisciplinary treatments, including locoregional melphalan chemotherapy, in 62 BRAF wild-type CM patients with locoregional metastases in the inferior limbs and pelvis, including inguinal regions. Patients were either in progression following or ineligible for, or not treatable with novel immunotherapy. For exclusively inferior limb-localised disease, patients received locoregional melphalan chemotherapy performed by hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion (n = 19) or isolated limb infusion (n = 19), and for synchronous lesions localised to inferior limbs and pelvis, received hypoxic pelvic and limb perfusion (n = 24). Additional multidisciplinary therapy included local, locoregional and systemic treatments and the primary endpoint was tumour response. RESULTS: The objective response rate following first cycle of locoregional chemotherapy was 37.1% at 3 mo and median progression-free survival was 4-mo, with 12.9% procedure-related complications, 30.6% low-grade haematological toxicity and 11.3% severe limb toxic tissue reactions. Multivariate logistic regression showed that the odds of response were significantly higher for patients ≤ 75 y of age and for patients with locoregional metastases exclusively located in the inferior limbs. CONCLUSION: In this subgroup of CM patients with BRAF wild-type status, locoregional metastases localized to inferior limbs and pelvis, in progression following or ineligible for immunotherapy, melphalan locoregional chemotherapy demonstrated a safe and effective profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920516; date of trial registration: August 6, 2013.

Paclitaxel with or without trametinib or pazopanib in advanced wild-type BRAF melanoma (PACMEL): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced melanoma treatments often rely on immunotherapy or targeting mutations, with few treatment options for wild-type BRAF (BRAF-wt) melanoma. However, the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway is activated in most melanoma, including BRAF-wt. We assessed whether inhibiting this pathway by adding kinase inhibitors trametinib or pazopanib to paclitaxel chemotherapy improved outcomes in patients with advanced BRAF-wt melanoma in a phase II, randomised and open-label trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to paclitaxel alone or with trametinib or pazopanib. Paclitaxel was given for a maximum of six cycles, while 2 mg trametinib and 800 mg pazopanib were administered orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Participants and investigators were unblinded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Participants were randomised to paclitaxel alone (n = 38), paclitaxel and trametinib (n = 36), or paclitaxel and pazopanib (n = 37). Adding trametinib significantly improved 6-month PFS [time ratio (TR), 1.47; 90% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.01, P = 0.04] and ORR (42% versus 13%; P = 0.01) but had no effect on OS (P = 0.25). Adding pazopanib did not benefit 6-month PFS; (TR 1.36; 90% CI 0.96-1.93; P = 0.14), ORR, or OS. Toxicity increased in both combination arms. CONCLUSION: In this phase II trial, adding trametinib to paclitaxel chemotherapy for BRAF-wt melanoma improved PFS and substantially increased ORR but did not impact OS.This study was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2011-002545-35, and with the ISRCTN registry, number 43327231.

Phase III study with FOLFIRI + cetuximab versus FOLFIRI + cetuximab followed by cetuximab alone in RAS and BRAF WT mCRC.

The optimal duration and intensity of first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients once they have achieved an objective response is controversial. In a molecularly selected RAS and BRAF wild-type (wt) population, this concern is amplified. Once disease control has been achieved with a combination therapy including an anti-EGFR antibody, further exposure both to cytotoxic drugs and targeted therapy might result only in increased toxicity. In unresectable metastatic RAS and BRAF wt colorectal cancer patients, a deintensified therapy could represent a valuable option that might preserve quality of life. We designed a study to compare FOLFIRI/cetuximab to FOLFIRI/cetuximab for eight cycles followed by cetuximab alone in first-line treatment of RAS and BRAF (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Molecular Targeted Therapy Approaches for BRAF Wild-Type Melanoma.

Patients with metastatic melanoma have historically had dismal outcomes. The last several years has seen the emergence of effective immune and targeted therapies for metastatic melanoma. Targeted therapies have primarily impacted the 40-50% of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated melanoma. The remainder of patients with advanced melanoma harbor a wide spectrum of mutations other than BRAF(V600) that are associated with unique pathophysiological, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. The treatment of this subset of patients is a challenging problem. In recent years, preclinical and early clinical studies have suggested that inhibitors of mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway and parallel signaling networks may have activity in treatment of BRAF(V600) wild-type (WT) melanoma. In this review, we will discuss available and developing therapies for BRAF WT patients with metastatic melanoma, particularly focusing on molecular targeted options for various genetically defined melanoma subsets.

Efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor antibody rechallenge in RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional observational study.

PURPOSE: To investigate circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) RAS mutant (MT) incidence before salvage-line treatment and the clinicopathological features and molecular biological factors associated with the efficacy of anti-epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) rechallenge for tissue RAS/BRAF wild type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: This multi-institutional retrospective observational study included 74 patients with mCRC with tissue RAS/BRAF WT refractory to first-line chemotherapy containing anti-EGFR mAb. ctDNA RAS status was assessed using the OncoBEAM™ RAS CRC Kit. We explored the clinicopathological features associated with ctDNA RAS status and the factors related to anti-EGFR mAb rechallenge efficacy in multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: The incidence of RAS MT in ctDNA was 40.5% (30/74), which was associated with primary tumor resection (P = 0.016), liver metastasis (P < 0.001), and high tumor marker levels (P < 0.001). Among the 39 patients treated with anti-EGFR mAb rechallenge, those with ctDNA RAS WT showed significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those with ctDNA RAS MT (median 4.1 vs. 2.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.39, P = 0.045). Patients who responded to first-line anti-EGFR mAb showed significantly longer PFS (HR = 0.21, P = 0.0026) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.23, P = 0.026) than those with stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ctDNA RAS MT mCRC was 40.5%, which was associated with liver metastases and high tumor volumes. Anti-EGFR mAb rechallenge may be effective for patients with mCRC who responded to first-line chemotherapy containing anti-EGFR mAb. No patients with RAS MT in ctDNA responded to anti-EGFR mAb rechallenge.

Circulating cytokine dynamics as potential biomarker of response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in BRAFwt MM patients.

BACKGROUND: The biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) efficacy and safety are still urgently needed. As cytokines are easily detected and monitored in circulation, they could be used as potential predictors of response and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) for ICIs therapy. METHODS: The levels of TGF-ß, IFN-γ, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 were measured in sera and plasma by ELISA method of 30 healthy controls (HC) and 32 BRAF wild type (wt) MM patients before and after every 12 weeks of Pembrolizumab, PD-1 inhibitor, until one year or disease progression (DP). RESULTS: Higher pretherapy levels of circulating TGF-ß, IFN-γ, IL-6, and IL-10 were shown in MM patients compared to HC. In patients with disease control, TGF-ß and IL-6 first decreased during the therapy, while then they started to successively increase reaching the initial values by the end of the follow up. Furthermore, in this group of patients IFN-γ increased, while IL-8 and IL-10 decreased at final points of the follow up. In patients with DP IL-6 increased at the time of progression, while IL-8 decreased when the best response was achieved. In patients with pseudoprogression IL-6 and IL-10 significantly increased compared to the pretreatment values. Melanoma patients with irAEs had increased baseline values of TGF-ß, IFN-γ, IL-6, and IL-10 compared to HC. However, no significant changes in cytokines levels were found in these patients during therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory cytokines monitoring in circulation of BRAFwt MM patients could help in the selection of patients who will have the benefit from Pembrolizumab therapy.

Epigenetic signature discriminates lymphatic metastasis in BRAF wild-type thyroid carcinoma: methylation role of GRIK2.

Aim: Conservative treatment approaches for thyroid carcinoma (TC) patients with wild-type B-type Raf kinase (BRAF) pose risks of long-term recurrence. The association of DNA methylation with TC metastasis is unclear. Patients & methods: Here we analyzed data from 179 BRAF wild-type TC patients in the The Cancer Genome Atlas database, identifying significant metastasis-associated CpGs. A logistic regression model was developed and validated for discriminating lymphatic metastasis in BRAF wild-type TC. Results: The model showed high accuracy (AUC: 0.924 training set; 0.812 and 0.773 external cohorts). TAGLN, MRPL4, CLDN10 and GRIK2 emerged as diagnostic markers. GRIK2, downregulated due to promoter hypermethylation, acted as a TC suppressor. Conclusion: Our 5-CpG epigenetic signature effectively discriminates lymphatic metastasis in BRAF wild-type TC, highlighting GRIK2's tumor-suppressive role influenced by promoter hypermethylation.

Efficacy of third-line anti-EGFR-based treatment versus regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil according to primary tumor site in RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Background: Right- (R) and left-sided (L) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) exhibit different clinical and molecular features. Several retrospective analyses showed that survival benefit of anti-EGFR-based therapy is limited to RAS/BRAF wt L-sided mCRC patients. Few data are available about third-line anti-EGFR efficacy according to primary tumor site. Methods: RAS/BRAF wt patients mCRC treated with third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy versus regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (R/T) were retrospectively collected. The objective of the analysis was to compare treatment efficacy according to tumor site. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and toxicity. Results: A total of 76 RAS/BRAF wt mCRC patients, treated with third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy or R/T, were enrolled. Of those, 19 (25%) patients had a R-sided tumor (9 patients received anti-EGFR treatment and 10 patients R/T) and 57 (75%) patients had a L-sided tumor (30 patients received anti-EGFR treatment and 27 patients R/T). A significant PFS [7.2 vs 3.6 months, HR 0.43 (95% CI 0.2-0.76), p= 0.004] and OS benefit [14.9 vs 10.9 months, HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.28-0.98), p= 0.045] in favor of anti-EGFR therapy vs R/T was observed in the L-sided tumor group. No difference in PFS and OS was observed in the R-sided tumor group. A significant interaction according to primary tumor site and third-line regimen was observed for PFS (p= 0.05). RR was significantly higher in L-sided patients treated with anti-EGFR vs R/T (43% vs. 0%; p <0.0001), no difference was observed in R-sided patients. At the multivariate analysis, third-line regimen was independently associated with PFS in L-sided patients. Conclusions: Our results demonstrated a different benefit from third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy according to primary tumor site, confirming the role of L-sided tumor in predicting benefit from third-line anti-EGFR vs R/T. At the same time, no difference was observed in R-sided tumor.

Exact Primary Tumor Location in mCRC: Prognostic Value and Predictive Impact on Anti-EGFR mAb Efficacy.

Primary tumor sidedness (left vs. right) has prognostic and predictive impact on anti-EGFR agent efficacy and thus management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This analysis evaluates the relevance of primary tumor location (PTL) in RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC patients, when dividing the colorectal frame into six segments. This pooled analysis, performed on a single-patient basis of five randomized first-line therapy trials, evaluates the impact of exact PTL classification on baseline characteristics, prognosis and prediction of anti-EGFR antibody efficacy by chi-square and log-rank tests, the Kaplan-Meier method, Cox and logistic regressions. The PTL was significantly associated with metastatic spread: liver (p = 0.001), lung (p = 0.047), peritoneal (p < 0.001) and lymph nodes (p = 0.048). A multivariate analysis indicated an impact on anti-EGFR agent efficacy in terms of overall survival depending on the exact primary tumor location: from detrimental in caecal (HR 2.63), rather neutral effects in the ascending colon (HR 1.24), right flexure/transverse colon (HR 0.99) and left flexure/descending colon (HR 0.91) to clear benefit in sigmoid (HR 0.71) and rectal (HR 0.58) primaries. Exact primary tumor location affects anti-EGFR antibody efficacy in a rather continuous than a dichotomous fashion in RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC patients. This perspective might help to support clinical decisions when anti-EGFR antibodies are considered.

First-line treatment of NRAS-mutated metastatic melanoma with a MEK inhibitor.

Until recently, standard treatment for advanced melanoma comprised basically dacarbazine and interleukin-2, leading to low response rates and significant toxicity. These days, new treatments such as immunotherapy (anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 antibodies) and targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK-inhibitor combinations for patients harboring a BRAF mutation are available. In BRAF wild-type patients harboring an NRAS mutation, not fit for immunotherapy treatment options are still dismal. We describe an 84-year-old patient with widespread metastatic melanoma. He presented in July 2015 with a cerebral hemorrhage under anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Computed tomography revealed extensive metastatic disease (liver, lung, bones, lymph nodes, heart, and brain). Molecular testing was negative for BRAF but showed the presence of an NRAS mutation in exon 3 (pQ61K [c.181C>A]). The patient received as first-line treatment two cycles of cobimetinib showing a good partial remission and manageable side effects.

Cetuximab Maintenance Therapy in Patients with Unresectable Wild-Type RAS and BRAF Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Institute Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) is the preferred first-line therapy for RAS and BRAF wild-type (RBWT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). To counter chemotherapy-induced side effects, use of maintenance therapy is suggested. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of cetuximab maintenance therapy in patients after effective completion of first-line induction therapy. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled untreated patients with mCRC RBWT who received first-line cetuximab plus FOLFIRI therapy. Following this, patients with treatment response either entered observation (stop treatment) or maintenance treatment 1 (cetuximab plus irinotecan) groups. After 6-12 cycles of maintenance treatment 1, patients entered maintenance treatment 2 (cetuximab only). If a patient progressed on maintenance 2, cetuximab plus FOLFIRI was reintroduced. The primary end point was failure-free survival (FFS), whereas the secondary end points included disease control rate (DCR), objective remission rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety events were also evaluated. RESULTS: Among 79 enrolled patients, 72 completed first-line treatment effectively (DCR 91.1%, ORR 63.9%) and 44 entered maintenance 1 [median PFS 1 (mPFS, maintenance 1) 6.1 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.0-6.2; DCR 56.8%; ORR 22.7%]. Of them, 21 entered maintenance treatment 2 (mPFS2 8.7 months, 95% CI 3.3-14.1; DCR 28.6%; ORR 4.8%). Median FFS (mFFS) was significantly longer in the maintenance 1 group compared with the observation group [12.7 vs. 3.0 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.202, 95% CI 0.111-0.369; P < 0.001]. Overall, mFFS was 19.0 and 9.3 months in maintenance and observation groups, respectively (HR 0.211, 95% CI 0.117-0.380; P < 0.001). Rash acneiform, mucositis, and asthenia were commonly observed adverse events during maintenance treatment. CONCLUSION: Maintenance treatment with cetuximab after first-line therapy significantly improved FFS, with an acceptable safety profile in untreated patients with mCRC RBWT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered, 2019/10/02, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR number 1900026360.

Phase I dose-escalation trial of the oral AKT inhibitor uprosertib in combination with the oral MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase II doses of trametinib plus uprosertib (GSK2141795) in patients with solid tumors likely to be sensitive to MEK and/or AKT inhibition. METHODS: This was a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study in patients with triple-negative breast cancer or BRAF-wild type advanced melanoma. The primary outcome of the expansion study was investigator-assessed response. Among 126 enrolled patients, 63 received continuous oral daily dosing of trametinib and uprosertib, 29 received various alternative dosing schedules, and 34 were enrolled into expansion cohorts. Doses tested in the expansion cohort were trametinib 1.5 mg once daily (QD) + uprosertib 50 mg QD. RESULTS: Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with those reported in monotherapy studies but occurred at lower doses and with greater severity. Diarrhea was the most common dose-limiting toxicity; diarrhea and rash were particularly difficult to tolerate. Overall, 59% and 6% of patients reported AEs with a maximum severity of grade 3 and 4, respectively. Poor tolerability prevented adequate delivery of uprosertib with trametinib at a concentration predicted to have clinical activity. The study was terminated early based on futility in the continuous-dosing expansion cohorts and a lack of pharmacological or therapeutic advantage with intermittent dosing. The objective response rate was < 5% (1 complete response, 5 partial responses). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and intermittent dosing of trametinib in combination with uprosertib was not tolerated, and minimal clinical activity was observed in all schedules tested.

Lack of Benefit From Anti-EGFR Treatment in RAS and BRAF Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With Mucinous Histology or Mucinous Component.

BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinoma with mucinous histology or mucinous component are histologic subtypes of metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) with limited benefit from cytotoxic agents. Their sensitivity to anti-epithelial growth factor receptors (EGFRs) is not clear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The activity and efficacy of anti-EGFRs was retrospectively evaluated among patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC with or without mucinous histology or mucinous component. Subgroup analyses according to primary tumor location were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, the study population included 22 mucinous or with mucinous component tumors (11 right- and 11 left-sided tumors) and 83 not mucinous tumors. One patient experienced partial response among mucinous tumors, whereas in the not mucinous group, 42 patients experienced partial response, with an overall response rate of 4% and 51%, respectively (P = .003). The median progression-free survival was 2.8 versus 6.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.59; P < .001), and the median overall survival was 6.5 and 16.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.00; P = .022), for the mucinous and not mucinous groups, respectively. Similar results were observed in subgroup analysis according to primary tumor location. CONCLUSION: Anti-EGFRs may not provide clinically meaningful benefit in mCRCs with mucinous histology or mucinous component compared with those without mucinous component, irrespective of sidedness.

A first-in-human phase I, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study of the oral RAF/VEGFR-2 inhibitor (RAF265) in locally advanced or metastatic melanoma independent from BRAF mutation status.

To establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), safety profile, and anti-tumor efficacy of RAF265. We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase-I, dose-escalation trial of RAF265, an orally available RAF kinase/VEGFR-2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma. Pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis, pharmacodynamics (PD) and tumor response assessment were conducted. We evaluated metabolic tumor response by 18[F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET), tissue biomarkers using immunohistochemistry (IHC), and modulators of angiogenesis. RAF265 has a serum half-life of approximately 200 h. The MTD was 48 mg once daily given continuously. Among 77 patients, most common treatment-related adverse effects were fatigue (52%), diarrhea (34%), weight loss (31%) and vitreous floaters (27%). Eight of 66 evaluable patients (12.1%) had an objective response, including seven partial and one complete response. Responses occurred in BRAF-mutant and BRAF wild-type (WT) patients. Twelve of 58 (20.7%) evaluable patients had a partial metabolic response. On-treatment versus pretreatment IHC staining in 23 patients showed dose-dependent p-ERK inhibition. We observed a significant temporal increase in placental growth factor levels and decrease in soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (sVEGFR-2) levels in all dose levels. RAF265 is an oral RAF/VEGFR-2 inhibitor that produced antitumor responses, metabolic responses, and modulated angiogenic growth factor levels. Antitumor activity occurred in patients with BRAF-mutant and BRAF-WT disease. Despite low activity at tolerable doses, this study provides a framework for the development of pan-RAF inhibitors and modulators of angiogenesis for the treatment of melanoma.