BRAF Mutation-positive Metastatic Melanoma Research Articles

Circulating tumor DNA mutation as a prognostic marker in melanoma with brain metastasis.

e21560 Background: Prognosis in melanoma with brain metastasis is poor with a median survival of four months and a one-year survival rate of 10–20%. There is an unmet need for surveillance methods that can supplement imaging at regular intervals. Serial analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may aid surveillance and prognostication. A PCR-based, “specimen in/result out” testing device was employed to detect BRAF variants in plasma-derived ctDNA to evaluate the utility of rapid biomarker detection in the management of melanoma with brain metastasis. Methods: Serial blood samples from patients diagnosed with BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma were collected at regular intervals. We employed a real-time PCR-based automated mutation detection system (Idylla; Biocartis, Belgium) to interrogate the plasma samples. The ctDNA mutation detection trend was analyzed relative to disease progression. Results: 39 patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma were enrolled. 29 patients were treated in the metastatic setting, 10 in the adjuvant setting. 18 of the 29 patients with metastatic disease (62%) had brain metastases. Circulating BRAF mutation was detected in 17 of the 29 (59%) patients with metastatic disease, and was not detected in any patients treated adjuvantly. In the group with metastatic disease, this circulating biomarker changed from undetectable to detectable in eight (28%) and detectable to undetectable in three (10%). No change in circulating mutation status occurred in 18 (62%). In the eight patients who had an initial negative test that later became positive, seven (87%) had brain metastases. In three patients, ctDNA mutation detection occurred before the diagnosis of brain metastases on imaging, with a median lead time of five weeks (range, 3-12 weeks). In one patient with de novo metastatic disease admitted to the ICU, tissue was unavailable for BRAF testing but plasma was found to be positive for ctDNA BRAF detection. BRAF/MEK targeted therapy resulted in a sustained objective response. Five of six (83%) patients that had persistent ctDNA positivity had brain metastases. Among patients with brain metastases, median overall survival (mOS) of patients demonstrating >50% test positivity was numerically longer than those with <50% positivity (mOS 12.3 vs 53.5 months; p = 0.133). Conclusions: Plasma-based, rapid ctDNA testing may be useful as an aid in detecting progression and gauging prognosis in patients with melanoma treated in the metastatic setting. The dynamics of ctDNA test positivity may indicate a need for more urgent imaging, particularly of the brain. Blood-based, semi-automated ctDNA detection may serve as an attractive adjunct to scheduled imaging surveillance in melanoma.

Sequential Treatment With Targeted and Immune Checkpoint Therapy in Patients With BRAF Positive Metastatic Melanoma: The Importance of Timing?

Background: Immune checkpoint- and targeted therapy have dramatically improved the therapeutic landscape in the management of BRAF mutation positive metastatic melanoma. However, pending the results of clinical trials, not only is it currently unclear whether immune checkpoint- or targeted therapy should be commenced up front, but the optimal time for changing treatment, specifically to prevent resistance whilst maintaining disease control, is unknown.Methods: We retrospectively identified eleven patients with BRAF V600 mutated metastatic melanoma who commenced targeted therapy between 11/2012 and 12/2017 in our center. In 5 cases the decision was made to “electively” switch to immune checkpoint therapy (elective group) following the development of a complete or partial response. In the remaining 6 cases the initial “reactive” switch was necessitated by disease progression or the development of intolerable side-effects (reactive group).Results: Overall, the elective cohort had a more favorable course in terms of overall survival (1,003 vs. 827 days), and 80% of the patients remain alive, in contrast to 17 % of the patients in the reactive group. However, it should be borne in mind that multiple switches due to disease progression were undertaken and this undoubtedly also impacted upon overall survival.Conclusion: Elective switching from targeted to immune checkpoint therapy was associated with a better outcome in terms of survival, at least in everyday clinical practice. It remains unclear whether the choice of initial therapy confers long–term survival and disease-control advantages and this should be addressed in prospective studies.

Progression-free(PFS) and overall survival (OS) in treatment of BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: Bayesian network meta-analysis.

e21532Background: First-line treatment options for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma include dacarbazine (DTIC), dabrafenib (DAB), dabrafenib + trametinib (DAB+TRA), vemurafenib (VEM),...

Recent advances in malignant melanoma.

In Australia, there is a high incidence of melanoma, and until recently, the treatment and median overall survival for advanced metastatic melanoma had not changed in decades. The recognition of BRAF as an important tumour oncogene in melanoma has led to the development of targeted therapies, and in the last few years, we have seen the impact of these therapies, with significant improvement in response rate, duration of disease control and overall survival for patients with BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. Concurrently, the science of immunotherapy has evolved beyond the knowledge of the importance of the immune system in cancer, leading to the development of checkpoint inhibitors. The development of checkpoint inhibitors as a tolerable and effective therapy for metastatic melanoma, which has demonstrated improved response rates, duration of control and overall survival for patients, has implications beyond the care of patients with metastatic melanoma as these therapies are being trialled in other malignancies. This article will review the current standard of care and available therapies for metastatic malignant melanoma.

BRAF-mutáció pozitív áttétes melanoma célzott gyógyszeres kezelése

BRAF-mutáció pozitív áttétes melanoma célzott gyógyszeres kezelése

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

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

Network Meta-analysis of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in First-Line Treatment of BRAF Mutation-Positive Metastatic Melanoma

IntroductionThe present study aimed to inform an economic evaluation of dabrafenib and trametinib combination as first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma in a Canadian setting. A network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS)and overall survival (OS) of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus other first-line treatments of BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma including dabrafenib, trametinib, vemurafenib, ipilimumab, and dacarbazine (DTIC).MethodsHRs for PFS and OS were from randomized controlled trials identified from systematic literature reviews. HRs for PFS and OS (adjusted for crossover as appropriate) were analyzed using multivariate and univariate Bayesian network meta-analysis.ResultsIn multivariate network-meta analyses (HRs for PFS and OS estimated simultaneously to account for the correlation of treatment effects on PFS and OS), HRs (95% credible interval) for PFS and OS favored dabrafenib plus trametinib [PFS: 0.23 (0.18–0.29) versus DTIC, 0.32 (0.24–0.42) versus ipilimumab plus DTIC, 0.52 (0.32–0.83) versus trametinib, 0.57 (0.48–0.69) versus vemurafenib, and 0.59 (0.50–0.71) versus dabrafenib]; OS [0.41 (0.29–0.56) versus DTIC, 0.52 (0.38–0.71) versus ipilimumab plus DTIC, 0.68 (0.47–0.95) versus trametinib, 0.69 (0.57–0.84) versus vemurafenib, and 0.72 (0.60–0.85) versus dabrafenib]. The beneficial effects on OS of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus ipilimumab plus DTIC and versus trametinib were attenuated when HRs were estimated using univariate network meta-analysis (HRs for PFS and OS estimated separately).ConclusionThis analysis demonstrates improved PFS and OS with dabrafenib + trametinib versus dabrafenib, trametinib, vemurafenib, ipilimumab plus DTIC, and DTIC as first-line treatment for patients with BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma.FundingNovartis Pharmaceuticals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40487-016-0030-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

90 Tumor infiltrating leukocyte subpopulations as a biomarker of response and resistance to targeted therapy in patients with BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma

90 Tumor infiltrating leukocyte subpopulations as a biomarker of response and resistance to targeted therapy in patients with BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma

A Single-Arm, Open-Label, Expanded Access Study of Vemurafenib in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma in the United States

This open-label, multicenter study was designed to allow access to vemurafenib for patients with metastatic melanoma, bridging the time between end of enrollment in the phase III registration trial (December 2010) and commercial availability following US Food and Drug Administration approval of vemurafenib for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma (August 2011). Eligible patients had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF mutation (detected by the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test). Unlike previous vemurafenib trials, patients with poor performance status (PS) and treated brain metastases were permitted. Enrolled patients received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Of 374 patients enrolled at 29 US sites (December 2010 to October 2011), 371 patients received vemurafenib and were followed up for a median of 2.8 months (the study had a prespecified end upon vemurafenib approval and commercial availability). At baseline, most patients (75%) had stage M1c disease, and 19% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 2 or 3; 72% of patients had received prior systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma, 27% received prior ipilimumab, and 29% radiotherapy for prior brain metastases. Because reassessment data to confirm response were not available for most patients, point estimates of objective response rate (ORR) are reported. Among 241 efficacy-evaluable patients, the ORR was 54% (median time to response, 1.9 months). The ORR in non-central nervous system sites in patients with previously treated brain metastases (n = 68) was 53%. The ORR in prior ipilimumab-treated patients (n = 68) was 52%. For patients with PS of 0 or 1 (n = 210) and 2 or 3 (n = 31), the ORRs were 55%, and 42%, respectively. The safety profile observed was consistent with that reported in previous studies. The number of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was higher in patients with PS 2 or 3 than in those with PS 0 or 1 (10% vs. 5%, respectively). Adverse events requiring a dose reduction (at least 1 level) occurred in 11% of patients, and 9 patients (2%) experienced events leading to vemurafenib withdrawal, including 2 with repeated QT interval prolongation. This study confirmed the established rapid and high tumor response rate achievable with vemurafenib in BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. Several groups not included in previous studies, including patients with previously treated brain metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 2 to 3, or previous ipilimumab treatment had benefitted from vemurafenib similar to the overall population. No new safety signals were detected.

Outcome and prognostic factors in BRAF mutation positive metastatic melanoma treated with a BRAF inhibitor: A population-based study in British Columbia.

e20045 Background: BRAF mutations are present in approximately 40-60% of cutaneous melanomas. The BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib has demonstrated dramatic anti-tumour activity in phase III trials in BRAF mutation positive (BRAFm) metastatic/unresectable melanoma; however, there is limited data outside of clinical trials. Methods: All patients > 18 years of age, PS 0-2, with metastatic/unresectable melanoma considered for treatment with vemurafenib in British Columbia between March 2011 to December 2012 were identified. CNS disease, if present, had to be radiographically stable/asymptomatic and treated with radiation and/or surgery. The BRAF V600E mutation status was evaluated centrally on primary or metastatic biopsies using a real-time PCR assay (Cobas 4800 BRAF Mutation Test, Roche Molecular Systems). Vemurafenib was initially provided through an Expanded Access Program/Roche patient assistance program and subsequently through provincial funding. Results: In total, 84 patients were identified that had undergone BRAF mutation screening, 49(58%) were BRAFm, 35(42%) were BRAFwt. For the BRAFm patients 33 have received 1 cycle of vemurafenib and are included in the present analysis (n=21 (64%) 1st line therapy; 12(36%) > 1st line therapy). BRAFm patients: median age 53 y; 64% male; PS 0/1 76%; LDH elevated 51.5%; M1c 91%; 27% history CNS metastases. With a median follow-up of 4.9 m the median PFS, measured from the 1st dose of vemurafenib, was 9 m and the median OS was 12.4 m. The 1 year PFS and OS were 47% and 50%, respectively. The median OS of patients who progressed following vemurafenib was only 2 months. There was an inferior PFS in patients with an elevated LDH (median PFS 5 m vs not reached, p=0.024) prior to receiving vemurafenib. Conclusions: The efficacy of vemurafenibin BRAF + melanoma in this population-based analysis compares favorably to estimates in the clinical trial setting. The survival of patients who progress on vemurafenib is short, highlighting the need to explore combination therapies. An updated analysis will be presented.

Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (D) hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) capsule formulation in combination with the MEK1/2 inhibitor trametinib (T) in patients (pts) with BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (MM).

9066 Background: Preclinical studies ofD + T show enhanced activity in BRAF mutant MM vs either drug alone. D + T safety and efficacy were evaluated in a 4-part (A–D) phase I/II study. Part D assessed the impact on efficacy, safety and PK of a more stable HPMC capsule formulation of D alone, and in combination with T, instead of the gelatin capsule used in Parts A–C. Methods: 110BRAFV600E/KMM pts with RECIST measurable disease were randomized to 4 cohorts. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated for the first 3 weeks of treatment. PK sampling was done on Days 1 and 21. Primary endpoints were PK and safety; secondary endpoints were response rate (RR) and overall survival (OS). Results: Median age was 54 years, 58% male, 65% ECOG PS 0, 88% V600E, 68% M1c stage, 97% no prior brain metastases, and 45% LDH > ULN. Treatment (tx) with D HPMC + T had little impact on ratio of D Cmax (1.16) and D AUC (1.23) vs D tx alone; but led to higher ratio of D Cmax(1.51) but similar D AUC (1.10) vs D gelatin + T seen in Part B. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and RR are in Table. Median PFS not reached in D4. No DLTs occurred in the first 15 subjects enrolled in D4. Most common AEs (≥40%) for all cohorts were pyrexia, nausea, chills, vomiting, arthralgia, and fatigue. Most common grade >3 AEs (all 5%) were hypertension, pyrexia, increased GGT, and hyponatremia. 11% of pts discontinued treatment due to an AE. There were no major differences in toxicities between cohorts and Parts A–C. Conclusions: The D + T combination had an acceptable safety profile with clinically manageable side effects. D HPMC + T had little impact on D Cmax and D AUC vs D alone. D HPMC led to higher D Cmaxbut similar D AUC vs gelatin + T. Meaningful clinical activity was seen in all dose combinations with D HPMC +T; PFS, RR, and duration of response were consistent with other study parts. Phase 3 studies with D HPMC + T are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT01072175. [Table: see text]

Comparison of BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi)-induced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cuSCC) and secondary malignancies in BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (MM) patients (pts) treated with dabrafenib (D) as monotherapy or in combination with MEK1/2 inhibitor (MEKi) trametinib (T).

9016 Background: The MAP kinase (MAPK) pathway is of critical importance for keratinocyte proliferation and maturation and is essential for epidermal homeostasis. Occurrence of hyperproliferative skin lesions including keratoacanthomas (KA) and cuSCC are considered a class effect of BRAFi [Anforth 2012, Chu 2012, Mattei 2012]. These effects, as well as promotion of pre-existing RAS-driven malignancies, may be caused by paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway downstream of BRAF in wild-type BRAF cells. As MEK inhibition blocks downstream MAPK signaling, it was hypothesized that addition of a MEKi to a BRAFi would abrogate these effects [Su, 2012]. Methods: This 4-part phase I/II study enrolled 365 BRAFV600E/Kmutated MM pts in Parts B-D. In part C, 162 pts (BRAFi and MEKi treatment-naïve, ≥ 18 yrs; ECOG PS <2; RECIST measurable disease) were randomized to D monotherapy 150mg BID (D mono) vs. the combination of D (150 mg BID) and T (1 mg or 2 mg QD). Primary endpoints included safety and efficacy. Occurrence of cuSCC (including KA) across three arms in Part C and secondary malignancies with D+T across all Parts are provided below. Results: The difference in incidence of cuSCC between D mono and the D+T (150/1) was statistically significant, whereas the difference in incidence between D mono and D+T (150/2) was not. The median time to onset of cuSCC was 30 days in D mono compared to 282 and 152 days with D+T (150/1 and 150/2, respectively). Of 365 pts who received D+T, 2 (<1%) cases of new cancers (colorectal and gliobastoma) and 2 (<1%) cases of new primary malignant melanoma were reported. Conclusions: These data support the experimental hypothesis that the occurrence of cuSCC (including KA) can be substantially reduced and delayed by the addition of a MEKi to BRAFi therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01072175. [Table: see text]