Mutation-positive Advanced Melanoma Research Articles

Overall survival with first-line atezolizumab in combination with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma (IMspire150): second interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study

Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis. The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672. Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43-63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1-45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6-44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9-not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0-34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib. Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Overall survival (OS) with first-line atezolizumab (A) or placebo (P) in combination with vemurafenib (V) and cobimetinib (C) in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma: Second interim OS analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study.

9547 Background: Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line A + V + C vs P + V + C in patients (pts) with BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.97; P= 0.025). With median follow-up of 18.9 months at primary analysis, OS data were immature; interim analysis of OS at the time of the primary analysis demonstrated a trend in favor of A + V + C over P + V + C (estimated 2-year OS rate, 60.4% vs 53.1%) (Gutzmer et al. Lancet 2020;395:1835-1844). Herein, we present results from the second interim OS analysis of the IMspire150 study. Methods: IMspire150 enrolled previously untreated pts with stage IV or unresectable stage IIIc BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (n = 514). Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive 28-day cycles of A + V + C (n = 256) or P + V + C (n = 258). Pts received V + C in cycle 1; A or P was added on days 1 and 15 from cycle 2 onwards. The second interim OS analysis was planned after ̃270 OS events were recorded, and was projected to have a minimally detectable difference of HR of 0.74 with a P value boundary of 0.0140. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: At data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 OS events had occurred. Median follow-up was 29.1 months (range, 1-54) for A + V + C and 22.8 months (range, 0-54) for P + V + C. A continued trend toward OS benefit in favor of A + V + C over P + V + C was observed with median OS of 39.0 vs 25.8 months, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06; P= 0.1432). A delayed treatment effect was observed, with landmark OS rates for A + V + C vs P + V + C of 76.1% vs 76.5% at 12 months and 61.5% vs 53.3% at 24 months. With additional follow-up, A + V + C continued to show PFS benefit over P + V + C (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97; P= 0.0224); overall response rates (66.7% vs 65.0%) and median duration of response (21.0 vs 12.6 months) remained consistent with those reported at primary analysis. No new safety signals were observed with additional follow-up. Conclusions: With further follow-up, A + V + C demonstrated a consistent, but not statistically significant, improvement in OS and continued benefit in duration of response versus P + V + C in previously untreated pts with BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT02908672.

Survival in adult patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma: a noninterventional ambispective study of patients with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib during the French early access program: MELANIS study.

Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib was available in France in 2015 through a 'Temporary Authorization for Use' program (TAU, preapproval access pending its marketing on 2016) for patients with v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1-mutant advanced melanoma. This study aimed to provide real-world outcomes in patients previously registered in this TAU. This noninterventional, ambispective, multicentre French study, conducted in patients previously registered in TAU, aimed to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and to describe the tolerability of the therapeutic combination. At first cobimetinib intake (in combination with vemurafenib), 88% of the 185 evaluable patients had disease stage IV (brain metastasis: 70% of them), 31% had elevated lactate dehydrogenases, and 10% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) index ≥2. Median OS was 16.1 months (95% CI, 12.5-20.7). Brain metastasis ( P < 0.001), ECOG index ≥2 ( P = 0.007), and hepatic impairment ( P = 0.037) were found as independent factors significantly associated with shorter survival. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.2-8.4). ECOG index ≥2 ( P = 0.006) was significantly associated with shorter PFS. Between cobimetinib start and inclusion, increased CPK (3% of patients), retinal serous detachment (3%), decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (3%), increased transaminases (3%), and rash (3%) were the most reported serious adverse events. This study provides real-world outcomes in France for the vemurafenib-cobimetinib combination available in patients with BRAF-mutant-advanced melanoma. Our data tend to confirm in the real-life setting that this combination therapy is effective in such patients, with a safety profile consistent with previous interventional studies.

Clinical research progress in the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma

Clinical research progress in the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma

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

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. 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). 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. 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.

Effects of baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), interferon gamma (IFN-g) expression, and tumor mutational burden (TMB) on treatment response to first-line atezolizumab (A) + vemurafenib (V) and cobimetinib (C) in BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma.

9523 Background: The phase 3 IMspire150 study showed that first-line A+V+C improved investigator-assessed PFS vs placebo (P)+V+C in BRAFV600E/K mutation–positive advanced melanoma (hazard ratio 0.78; P=.0249). Prior biomarker analyses showed that IFN-g or TMB &gt; 10 mut/Mb were associated with greater PFS benefits with A+V+C (Lewis et al. J ImmunoTher Cancer 2020;8:A188-A189). We further evaluated the association of these biomarkers with outcomes. Methods: Exploratory recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to model associations between PFS and age ( &lt; 65 vs ≥65 y), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1), liver metastases (yes vs no), metastatic sites (≤3 vs &gt; 3), sum of longest tumor diameters ( &lt; 44 mm vs ≥44 mm), baseline LDH (normal [n] vs elevated [e]), TMB ( &lt; 10 vs ≥10 mut/Mb), PD-L1 (negative vs positive), and IFN-g (high [h; &gt; Quartile 3; Q3] vs intermediate [ &gt; Q1 and ≤Q3] vs low [≤Q1]). Time-to-event analyses were summarized using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: The RPA analysis included 208/256 (81.3%) patients (pts) from the A+V+C arm of IMspire150 for whom LDH, TMB, IFN-g, and PD-L1 data were available. RPA showed that LDH was associated with PFS. In pts treated with A+V+C and n-LDH, h-IFN-g signature was associated with longer PFS and higher rates of objective response (OR) and complete response (CR) vs low/intermediate (l/i) IFN-g (2-y PFS: 59% vs 38%; ORR: 77% vs 69%; CR: 38% vs 15%, respectively); TMB ≥10 mut/Mb was associated with more favorable outcomes in pts with e-LDH (Table). In contrast, neither IFN-g nor TMB discriminated PFS outcomes in n-LDH or e-LDH pt subgroups receiving P+V+C. Pts with e-LDH and TMB &lt; 10 mut/Mb had poor PFS outcomes, with 2-y PFS rates of 9% and 3% and lower rates of OR (51% and 62%) and CR (5% and 9%) in the A+V+C and P+V+C arms, respectively. Similar trends were observed for duration of response (DOR), and for the subset of pts with BRAFV600E mutation–positive melanoma. A+V+C improved PFS vs P+V+C across all subgroups with the exception of e-LDH and TMB &lt; 10. Conclusions: IFN-g and TMB discriminated PFS benefit in pts receiving A+V+C but not for those receiving P+V+C. Durable responses were observed for pts treated with A+V+C in the n-LDH + h-IFNg subgroups.[Table: see text]

1137P Incidence and time course of adverse events (AEs) with atezolizumab (A) in combination with vemurafenib (V) and cobimetinib (C) in the phase III IMspire150 study

The phase III IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated improved progression-free survival with first-line A vs placebo (P) combined with V+C in patients (pts) with BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma. Safety profiles of A and V+C partially overlap. Here we report incidence, time course, and outcomes of select AEs of special interest (AESIs) in IMspire150. 514 pts were randomized 1:1 to A+V+C or P+V+C. Pts received V+C from cycle 1; A or P was added from cycle 2 onward. Incidence (overall and by cycle), time to onset/resolution, and recurrence of select AESIs were evaluated in the safety population (A+V+C, n=230; P+V+C, n=281). Rash and hepatitis were analyzed as overall combined medical concepts. Median follow-up was 18.9 mo. AESI rates were numerically higher with A+V+C vs P+V+C (rash, 81% vs 77%; elevated creatine phosphokinase [eCPK], 53% vs 47%; pyrexia, 49% vs 35%; and hepatitis [clinical diagnosis and asymptomatic lab abnormalities], 53% vs 38%), excepting diarrhea (50% vs 56%). Incidences of diarrhea, rash, and eCPK were highest in cycle 1 and decreased thereafter. Incidences of pyrexia and hepatitis peaked in cycle 2 after addition of A in the A+V+C arm then similarly declined. Median time to onset was similar with A+V+C vs P+V+C for diarrhea (0.4 vs 0.4 mo) and rash (0.5 vs 0.4 mo), but was numerically longer with A+V+C for eCPK (1.4 vs 0.7 mo), pyrexia (1.2 vs 0.7 mo), and hepatitis (1.6 vs 1.2 mo). Median time to resolution was similar between arms (diarrhea, 0.3 vs 0.2 mo; rash, 0.8 vs 0.8 mo; eCPK, 0.5 vs 0.5 mo; pyrexia, 0.1 vs 0.1 mo; hepatitis, 0.7 vs 0.7 mo). In pts who had first occurrence of an AESI with A+V+C vs P+V+C, incidences of recurrent AESIs were diarrhea (58/115 vs 64/157), rash (65/187 vs 62/215), eCPK (62/121 vs 61/133), pyrexia (53/112 vs 29/98), and hepatitis (38/122 vs 25/107). Recurrent AESIs were generally grade 1/2 with median times to recurrence of 0.8-1.5 mo. These data indicate that key AESIs with A+V+C occur early during treatment; are manageable, with resolution times similar to those with V+C; and have low to moderate risk of recurrence. Recurrent AESIs are generally mild to moderate in severity with no evidence of cumulative effect.

1118P Retrospective analysis of safety in elderly BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma patients treated with dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) and correlation with non-elderly patients

1118P Retrospective analysis of safety in elderly BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma patients treated with dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) and correlation with non-elderly patients

Abstract CT012: Evaluation of atezolizumab (A), cobimetinib (C), and vemurafenib (V) in previously untreated patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma: Primary results from the phase 3 IMspire150 trial

Abstract Background: Approved systemic treatments for advanced melanoma include immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for BRAFV600E/K mutant melanoma. Response rates with CITs are typically lower than those observed with targeted therapy, but CIT responses are more durable. Preclinical and clinical data suggest a potential for synergy between CIT and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. We therefore evaluated whether combining CIT with targeted therapy could improve efficacy vs targeted therapy alone. Methods: Treatment-naive patients with unresectable stage IIIc/IV melanoma (AJCC 7th ed), measurable disease by RECIST 1.1, and BRAFV600 mutations in their tumors were randomized to the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody A + C + V or placebo (Pbo) + C + V. A or Pbo were given on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: 514 patients were enrolled (A + C + V = 256; Pbo + C + V = 258) and followed for a median of 18.9 months. Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly prolonged with A + C + V vs Pbo + C + V (15.1 vs 10.6 months, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.78; 95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.97; P=0.025), an effect seen in all prognostic subgroups. While objective response rates were similar in the A + C + V and Pbo + C + V groups, median duration of response was prolonged with A + C + V (21.0 months) vs Pbo + C + V (12.6 months). Overall survival data were not mature at the time of analysis. Common treatment-related adverse events (AEs; &amp;gt;30%) in the A + C + V and Pbo + C + V groups were blood creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) increase (51.3% vs 44.8%), diarrhea (42.2% vs 46.6%), rash (40.9% in both arms), arthralgia (39.1% vs 28.1%), pyrexia (38.7% vs 26.0%), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increase (33.9% vs 22.8%), and lipase increase (32.2% vs 27.4%). Common treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs (&amp;gt;10%) that occurred in the A + C + V and Pbo + C + V groups were lipase increase (20.4% vs 20.6%), blood CPK increase (20.0% vs 14.9%), ALT increase (13.0% vs 8.9%), and maculopapular rash (12.6% vs 9.6%). The incidence of treatment-related serious AEs was similar between the A + C + V (33.5%) and Pbo + C + V (28.8%) groups. 12.6% of patients in the A + C + V group and 15.7% in the Pbo + C + V group stopped all treatment because of AEs. The safety profile of the A + C + V regimen was generally consistent with the known profiles of the individual components. Conclusion: Combination therapy with A + C + V was tolerable and manageable, produced durable responses, and significantly increased PFS vs Pbo + C + V. Thus, A + C + V represents a viable treatment option for BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02908672 Citation Format: Grant A. McArthur, Daniil Stroyakovskiy, Helen Gogas, Caroline Robert, Karl Lewis, Svetlana Protsenko, Rodrigo Pereira, Thomas Eigentler, Piotr Rutkowski, Lev Demidov, Georgy Moiseevich Manikhas, Yibing Yan, K. C. Huang, Anne Uyei, Virgina McNally, Ralf Gutzmer, Paolo Ascierto. Evaluation of atezolizumab (A), cobimetinib (C), and vemurafenib (V) in previously untreated patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma: Primary results from the phase 3 IMspire150 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT012.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (IMspire150): primary analysis of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

IMspire150 aimed to evaluate first-line combination treatment with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint therapy in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced or metastatic melanoma. IMspire150 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study done at 112 institutes in 20 countries. Patients with unresectable stage IIIc-IV, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to 28-day cycles of atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) or atezolizumab placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group). In cycle 1, all patients received vemurafenib and cobimetinib only; atezolizumab placebo was added from cycle 2 onward. Randomisation was stratified by lactate dehydrogenase concentration and geographical region. Blinding for atezolizumab was achieved by means of an identical intravenous placebo, and blinding for vemurafenib was achieved by means of a placebo tablet. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. This trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672) is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 777 patients were screened and 514 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (n=256) or control group (n=258). At a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8), progression-free survival as assessed by the study investigator was significantly prolonged with atezolizumab versus control (15·1 vs 10·6 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0·78; 95% CI 0·63-0·97; p=0·025). Common treatment-related adverse events (>30%) in the atezolizumab and control groups were blood creatinine phosphokinase increased (51·3% vs 44·8%), diarrhoea (42·2% vs 46·6%), rash (40·9%, both groups), arthralgia (39·1% vs 28·1%), pyrexia (38·7% vs 26·0%), alanine aminotransferase increased (33·9% vs 22·8%), and lipase increased (32·2% vs 27·4%); 13% of patients in the atezolizumab group and 16% in the control group stopped all treatment because of adverse events. The addition of atezolizumab to targeted therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable and significantly increased progression-free survival in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Triple Therapy Better for Advanced Melanoma.

Adding a PD-L1 inhibitor to a standard targeted therapy for patients with untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma led to significantly improved progression-free survival, according to findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Virtual Annual Meeting Part I: April 27-28, 2020. The results add to evidence that combining immune checkpoint blockade with MEK-BRAF inhibition produces more clinically meaningful survival benefits than either MEK-BRAF or immune checkpoint inhibition alone.

Time to central nervous system (CNS) metastases (mets) with atezolizumab (A) or placebo (P) combined with cobimetinib (C) + vemurafenib (V) in the phase III IMspire150 study.

10023 Background: The phase 3 IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated improved progression-free survival with first-line combination treatment with A+C+V vs P+C+V in patients (pts) with previously untreated BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma. Here we report incidence and time to development of CNS mets with A+C+V vs P+C+V in the IMspire150 study. Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to receive A+C+V or P+C+V. A or P were given on day 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle after an initial cycle of C+V. Incidence and time to development of CNS mets were evaluated in pts with no history of CNS mets at baseline confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography (MRI/CT). On study MRI/CT assessments were performed as clinically indicated. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and competing risks analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using landmark analysis at time of initiation of A or P. Results: 514 pts were randomized to receive A+C+V (n = 256) or P+C+V (n = 258); 244 and 247 pts, respectively, had no history of CNS mets at baseline. After a median follow-up of 18.9 months, CNS mets had developed in 52/244 pts (21%) in the A+C+V arm and 62/247 pts (25%) in the P+C+V arm. In both arms, pts with CNS mets were more likely to have other known unfavorable prognostic factors: elevated LDH, presence of liver mets, and/or higher tumor burden. Cumulative incidence of CNS mets as first site of progressive disease with A+C+V vs P+C+V was 8% vs 9%, 16% vs 19%, 20% vs 24%, and 23% vs 26% at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; 95% CI 0.60-1.26). Estimated CNS mets-free survival rates for A+C+V vs P+C+V were 91% vs 90%, 81% vs 75%, 74% vs 66%, and 69% vs 62% at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively, with a trend for improved CNS mets-free survival with A+C+V (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.55-1.14). Results of landmark analyses for CNS mets-free survival and cumulative incidence of CNS mets were similar to those in the overall analysis. Conclusions: The addition of anti–programmed death-ligand 1 to C+V is associated with numerically lower rates of interval development of CNS mets, consistent with the overall benefit observed for A+C+V in the study. This finding requires further follow-up to fully assess the magnitude of benefit of A+C+V on CNS mets-free survival. Clinical trial information: NCT02908672.

A phase II study evaluating atezolizumab (A), cobimetinib (C), and vemurafenib (V) in patients (pts) with BRAF-mutant melanoma and central nervous system (CNS) metastases (mets).

TPS10081 Background: CNS mets, a common complication of melanoma, are associated with poor survival prognosis (median of 4-5 months). The rationale for combining PD-L1 pathway blockade using atezolizumab (A) with the small molecule BRAF pathway–targeted inhibitors cobimetinib (C) and vemurafenib (V) for the treatment of BRAFV600 mutation–positive melanoma is based on preclinical and translational evidence supporting the synergistic antitumoral effects of these approaches. Recently, the phase 3 IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated improved progression-free survival outcomes with A + C + V vs C + V. Methods: This phase 2 study (NCT03625141) is currently evaluating A + C + V in pts with BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma and CNS mets. The study originally included a parallel cohort evaluating A + C in pts with BRAFV600wild-type advanced melanoma and CNS mets. This cohort was closed at an enrollment of 15 pts after the primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire170 study (NCT03273153), which showed no added benefit with A + C vs pembrolizumab in pts with BRAFV600 wild-type disease. Eligible pts are aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed melanoma and magnetic resonance imaging–confirmed brain mets ≥5 mm in at least 1 dimension. In addition, pts should not have received prior systemic treatment for metastatic disease; they were required to have ECOG performance status ≤2 and adequate hematologic and end organ function. Prior stereotactic or surgical therapy of ≤10 brain mets is allowed. The primary endpoint is intracranial objective response rate (ORR) with A + C + V in BRAFV600mutation–positive melanoma as assessed by an independent review committee. Key secondary endpoints include investigator-assessed intracranial ORR, extracranial ORR, overall ORR, safety, and quality of life. Exploratory biomarker analyses are planned. The sample size for the cohort will be approximately 60 pts. No formal statistical hypothesis is being tested in this study. The primary study analysis and the analyses of all efficacy endpoints and safety summaries will be based on data collected ≤6 months after the last pt is enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT03625141.

Real-world efficacy and safety data for dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy in Japanese patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma.

We conducted a retrospective investigation of the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy in Japanese patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma in real-world clinical practise. The study analyzed 50 patients who received dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy for BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma in our hospital (26 men and 24 women, aged 21-86years, inclusive; median age, 53years). The response rate was 72.3%, with complete response (CR) achieved in eight cases (17.0%), partial response in 26 (55.3%), stable disease in nine (19.1%) and progressive disease in four (8.5%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12months, and median overall survival (OS) was 23months. Disease progression occurred in 29 of the 50 patients during the study period, and 25 patients died. Baseline lactate dehydrogenase and the number of organs with metastasis were important predictive factors for PFS and OS, and CR to combination therapy was a predictive factor for long-term remission. Adverse events occurred in 88% of cases; 16% were grade 3 or worse. The adverse events observed in 50% of more of patients were rash (56%) and pyrexia (52%). The efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy in Japanese patients was similar to that reported in global studies, and the same adverse events were generally reported; however, rash tended to occur more frequently in the patients in our study.

AKT is critically involved in the antagonism of BRAF inhibitor sorafenib against dabrafenib in colorectal cancer cells harboring both wild-type and mutant (V600E) BRAF genes

BRAF, one of the key factors in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway, plays an important role in cell functions including growth and proliferation. Inhibition of BRAF represents a promising antitumor strategy. Dabrafenib, a type I inhibitor of BRAF interrupting RAF/MEK interaction, has been approved by FDA as a single agent or combined with MEK inhibitor trametinib for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600E mutation-positive advanced melanoma. In the present study, we investigated the feasibility of combined treatment with dabrafenib and sorafenib, type I and type II BRAF inhibitor respectively, on colorectal cancer cells with BRAF V600E mutation. Unexpectedly, sorafenib significantly antagonized the inhibition effect of dabrafenib on the proliferation of colorectal cancer HT-29 and Colo205 cells. The antagonism relied on co-existence of wild-type and mutant (V600E) BRAF, for no antagonism was observed in tumor cells expressing homozygous wild-type or mutant (V600E) BRAF. BRAF, but not CRAF, was required for this antagonism. Moreover, we found that sorafenib reversed dabrafenib inhibition of AKT in HT-29 cells, and phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor GDC0941 significantly restored this antagonistic effect when combined with dabrafenib and sorafenib, indicating that AKT is critically involved in this antagonism. Collectively, we found that significant antagonism was observed when dabrafenib was combined with sorafenib in colorectal cancer cells harboring heterozygous genotype of BRAF and AKT is critically involved in this antagonism. We suggest that BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and sorafenib should not be combined in clinic.

Photoinduced Conversion of Antimelanoma Agent Dabrafenib to a Novel Fluorescent BRAFV600E Inhibitor.

Dabrafenib (Tafinlar) was approved in 2013 by the FDA as a selective single agent treatment for patients with BRAFV600E mutation-positive advanced melanoma. One year later, a combination of dabrafenib and trametinib was used for treatment of BRAFV600E/K mutant metastatic melanoma. In the present study, we report on hitherto not described photosensitivity of dabrafenib both in organic and aqueous media. The half-lives for dabrafenib degradation were determined. Moreover, we revealed photoinduced chemical conversion of dabrafenib to its planar fluorescent derivative dabrafenib_photo 2. This novel compound could be isolated and biologically characterized in vitro. Both enzymatic and cellular assays proved that 2 is still a potent BRAFV600E inhibitor. The intracellular formation of 2 from dabrafenib upon ultraviolet irradiation is shown. The herein presented findings should be taken in account when handling dabrafenib both in preclinical research and in clinical applications.

Adjusting for treatment switching in the METRIC study shows further improved overall survival with trametinib compared with chemotherapy.

Trametinib, a selective inhibitor of mitogen‐activated protein kinase kinase 1 (MEK1) and MEK2, significantly improves progression‐free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation–positive advanced or metastatic melanoma (MM). However, the pivotal clinical trial permitted randomized chemotherapy control group patients to switch to trametinib after disease progression, which confounded estimates of the overall survival (OS) advantage of trametinib. Our purpose was to estimate the switching‐adjusted treatment effect of trametinib for OS and assess the suitability of each adjustment method in the primary efficacy population. Of the patients randomized to chemotherapy, 67.4% switched to trametinib. We applied the rank‐preserving structural failure time model, inverse probability of censoring weights, and a two‐stage accelerated failure time model to obtain estimates of the relative treatment effect adjusted for switching. The intent‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis estimated a 28% reduction in the hazard of death with trametinib treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52–0.98) for patients in the primary efficacy population (data cut May 20, 2013). Adjustment analyses deemed plausible provided OS HR point estimates ranging from 0.48 to 0.53. Similar reductions in the HR were estimated for the first‐line metastatic subgroup. Treatment with trametinib, compared with chemotherapy, significantly reduced the risk of death and risk of disease progression in patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation–positive advanced melanoma or MM. Adjusting for switching resulted in lower HRs than those obtained from standard ITT analyses. However, CI are wide and results are sensitive to the assumptions associated with each adjustment method.

Integrating first-line treatment options into clinical practice

Melanoma remains a serious form of skin cancer in Europe and worldwide. Localized, early-stage melanomas can usually be treated with surgical excision. However, the prognosis is poorer for patients with advanced disease. Before 2011, treatment for advanced melanoma included palliative surgery and/or radiotherapy, and chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy, such as interleukin-2. As none of these treatments had shown survival benefits in patients with advanced melanoma, European guidelines had recommended that patients be entered into clinical trials. The lack of approved first-line options and varying access to clinical trials meant that European clinicians relied on experimental regimens and chemotherapy-based treatments when no other options were available. Since 2011, ipilimumab, an immuno-oncology therapy, and vemurafenib and dabrafenib, targeted agents that inhibit mutant BRAF, have been approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of advanced melanoma. More recently, the MEK inhibitor, trametinib, received European marketing authorization for use in patients with BRAF mutation-positive advanced melanoma. In 2014, the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab was approved as a first-line therapy in Japan. Whereas nivolumab and another anti-PD-1 antibody, pembrolizumab, were approved as second-line therapies in the USA, their recent approval in Europe are for first-line use based on new clinical trial data in this setting. Together these agents are changing clinical practice and making therapeutic decisions more complex. Here, we discuss current and emerging therapeutic options for the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma, and how these therapies can be optimized to provide the best possible outcomes for patients.

A multi-center phase II study of high dose IL-2 (HD IL-2) sequenced with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF-V600E mutation positive advanced melanoma.

9053 Background: Durable unmaintained remissions are consistently observed in a small percentage of patients with metastatic melanoma (mM) treated with HD IL-2. Vemurafenib therapy gives rise to a ...

Next generation sequencing of exceptional responders with BRAF-mutant melanoma: implications for sensitivity and resistance.

BackgroundPatients with BRAF mutation-positive advanced melanoma respond well to matched therapy with BRAF or MEK inhibitors, but often quickly develop resistance.MethodsTumor tissue from ten patients with advanced BRAF mutation-positive melanoma who achieved partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) on BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors was analyzed using next generation sequencing (NGS) assay. Genomic libraries were captured for 3230 exons in 182 cancer-related genes plus 37 introns from 14 genes often rearranged in cancer and sequenced to average median depth of 734X with 99% of bases covered >100X.ResultsThree of the ten patients (median number of prior therapies = 2) attained prolonged CR (duration = 23.6+ to 28.7+ months); seven patients achieved either a PR or a short-lived CR. One patient who achieved CR ongoing at 28.7+ months and had tissue available close to the time of initiating BRAF inhibitor therapy had only a BRAF mutation. Abnormalities in addition to BRAF mutation found in other patients included: mutations in NRAS, APC and NF1; amplifications in BRAF, aurora kinase A, MYC, MITF and MET; deletions in CDKN2A/B and PAX5; and, alterations in RB1 and ATM. Heterogeneity between patients and molecular evolution within patients was noted.ConclusionNGS identified potentially actionable DNA alterations that could account for resistance in patients with BRAF mutation-positive advanced melanoma who achieved a PR or CR but whose tumors later progressed. A subset of patients with advanced melanoma may harbor only a BRAF mutation and achieve a durable CR on BRAF pathway inhibitors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1029-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.