Vemurafenib Group Research Articles

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma

Introduction/Objective. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of different approaches in the treatment of metastatic melanoma in daily clinical practice in a situation with limited and late availability of new drugs in a resource-limited country and to compare these parameters with those reported in clinical studies and from other real-world data. Methods. Main methods included assessment of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Patients were included in the study if they were treated with first or second-line systemic therapy for radiologically/ pathologically confirmed metastatic melanoma. Patients were divided into four groups based on the type of therapy they received: chemotherapy (dacarbazin), BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib), BRAF/MEK inhibitors (vemurafenib/cobimetinib and trametinib/dabrafenib) and anti PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab. Results. Regardless of the line of therapy, the calculated median OS in chemotherapy and vemurafenib group was nine months. The median OS in the BRAF/MEK inhibitor group was 14 months and 15 months in the pembrolizumab group. Median PFS in the chemotherapy group was four months, seven months for vemurafenib, in the BRAF/MEK inhibitor group nine months and in the pembrolizumab group six months. There was a statistically significant difference in survival between first and second-line therapy in the pembrolizumab group. Conclusion. Our results showed lower median OS and PFS in comparison to reported data from clinical trials. Compared to other real-world data from countries with similar problems related to the late reimbursement of new drugs, our research has shown similar results.

Preoperative treatment for marginally resectable metastatic melanoma: A single center experience in China.

e22096 Background: Large randomized trials have proved that targeted therapy (TT) and immunotherapy (IT) can improve RFS for resectable Stage III melanoma. However, there is still a risk around 15%~25% of relapse within 1 year, especially worse for Stage IIID disease. Several neoadjuvant trials have shown a potentiality of long-term relapse-free after a pathologic complete response, especially for immunotherapy. We conducted a prospective study to investigate the impact of preoperative treatment on the anti-tumor efficacy and disease-free survival for Chinese melanoma. Methods: Stage IIID patients with matted nodes were recruited. For BRAF V600E-muted patients, Vemurafenib (V) was given for one months ahead of the surgery. For BRAF-wide-type patients, anti-PD1 antibody, Pembrolizumab(P) or Toripalimab (T) was given one dose per 3 weeks until response or intention-to-progression was observed. Pathologic assessment followed the principles for neoadjuvant therapy established by INMC. Results: Totally seven patients have been recruited. Detail information was listed in Table. Clinical ORR was 71%, however with no pCR observed. One patient in Vemurafenib group occurred brain mets within 1 month after surgery. All four patients in anti-PD1 group were relapse-free so far after median follow-up of 11 months. Conclusions: Preoperative BRAF targeted and anti-PD1 immunotherapy might guarantee a positive impact on anti-tumor response and local disease control for marginally resectable melanoma. However, the pathological criteria for neoadjuvant treatment might not be suitable to evaluate the matted or bulky specimen after preoperative treatment. [Table: see text]

Clinical and radiological response of BRAF inhibition and MEK inhibition in patients with brain metastases from BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Patients with brain metastases (BM) from melanoma have an overall survival (OS) of 2-6 months after whole-brain radiotherapy. Targeted therapy (TT) is an effective treatment for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. Moreover, recent studies indicate intracranial responses of TT in patients with BM. We analyzed 146 patients with BM from BRAF-mutated melanoma treated with vemurafenib, dabrafenib, or dabrafenib+trametinib between 2010 and 2016. We determined clinical and radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Median OS of patients treated with dabrafenib+trametinib was 11.2 months [n=30; 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.8-15.7], 8.8 months for dabrafenib alone (n=31; 95% CI: 3.9-13.7), and 5.7 months for vemurafenib (n=85; 95% CI: 4.6-6.8). A significantly longer OS was observed in the dabrafenib+trametinib group than in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89; P=0.02). Median intracranial PFS of all patients was 4.1 months. Median intracranial PFS for patients treated with dabrafenib+trametinib was 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.2-8.5), 5.7 months (95% CI: 3.0-8.4) for dabrafenib, and 3.6 months (95% CI: 3.5-3.8) for vemurafenib (P=0.54). A total of 63 (43%) patients had symptomatic BM. Intracranial disease control rate at 8 weeks in these patients was 65 versus 70% extracranially. Neurological symptoms improved in 46% of patients with symptomatic BM, whereas in 21%, they remained stable. Median OS in patients with BM from BRAF-mutated melanoma treated with dabrafenib+trametinib was significantly longer than for vemurafenib. Improvement of neurological symptoms was seen in almost half of the patients with symptomatic BM treated with TT.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8-16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0-18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6-8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41-0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator. Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM8): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial

Systemic adjuvant treatment might mitigate the high risk of disease recurrence in patients with resected stage IIC-III melanoma. The BRIM8 study evaluated adjuvant vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with resected, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. BRIM8 was a phase 3, international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study that enrolled 498 adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB (cohort 1) or stage IIIC (cohort 2) BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma that was fully resected. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice or web response system to receive twice-daily adjuvant oral vemurafenib 960 mg tablets or matching placebo for 52 weeks (13 × 28-day cycles). Randomisation was done by permuted blocks (block size 6) and was stratified by pathological stage and region in cohort 1 and by region in cohort 2. The investigators, patients, and sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated separately in each cohort. Hierarchical analysis of cohort 2 before cohort 1 was prespecified. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01667419. The study enrolled 184 patients in cohort 2 (93 were assigned to vemurafenib and 91 to placebo) and 314 patients in cohort 1 (157 were assigned to vemurafenib and 157 to placebo). At the time of data cutoff (April 17, 2017), median study follow-up was 33·5 months (IQR 25·9-41·6) in cohort 2 and 30·8 months (25·5-40·7) in cohort 1. In cohort 2 (patients with stage IIIC disease), median disease-free survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 18·6-26·5) in the vemurafenib group versus 15·4 months (11·1-35·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·54-1·18; log-rank p=0·26). In cohort 1 (patients with stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB disease) median disease-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable) in the vemurafenib group versus 36·9 months (21·4-not estimable) in the placebo group (HR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37-0·78]; log-rank p=0·0010); however, the result was not significant because of the prespecified hierarchical prerequisite for the primary disease-free survival analysis of cohort 2 to show a significant disease-free survival benefit. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 141 (57%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 37 (15%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the vemurafenib group were keratoacanthoma (24 [10%] of 247 patients), arthralgia (17 [7%]), squamous cell carcinoma (17 [7%]), rash (14 [6%]), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (14 [6%]), although all keratoacanthoma events and most squamous cell carcinoma events were by default graded as grade 3. In the placebo group, grade 3-4 adverse events did not exceed 2% for any of the reported terms. Serious adverse events were reported in 40 (16%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 25 (10%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse event was basal cell carcinoma, which was reported in eight (3%) patients in each group. One patient in the vemurafenib group of cohort 2 died 2 months after admission to hospital for grade 3 hypertension; however, this death was not considered to be related to the study drug. The primary endpoint of disease-free survival was not met in cohort 2, and therefore the analysis of cohort 1 showing a numerical benefit in disease-free survival with vemurafenib versus placebo in patients with resected stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma must be considered exploratory only. 1 year of adjuvant vemurafenib was well tolerated, but might not be an optimal treatment regimen in this patient population. F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.

Long-term survival with modern therapeutic agents against metastatic melanoma-vemurafenib and ipilimumab in a daily life setting.

Despite new therapeutic options, metastatic melanoma remains to be one of the most fatal tumors. With the development of BRAF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, overall survival could be prolonged significantly for the first time. Clinical studies implied that even long-term survival is possible with both types of drugs, but predictive markers are so far missing. In this study, we analyzed survival data from patients that received the first-in-class substances vemurafenib and ipilimumab, respectively, during the time period from registration of the drugs until availability of combination treatments. We aimed to evaluate the possibility of long-term survival in a daily life setting and to characterize patients that benefit from these drugs in order to gain insight into predictive attributes. Eighty patients were evaluated who were treated with either vemurafenib (n=40) or ipilimumab (n=40), and overall survival was analyzed. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who were still alive 24months after induction of therapy (long-term survival). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.0months for patients treated with vemurafenib and 10.0months for patients treated with ipilimumab (log-rank P value=0.689). Long-term survival was achieved in 32.5% of patients (42.3% vemurafenib, 57.7% ipilimumab). Negative predictors of long-term survival in the vemurafenib group were brain and liver metastases, as well as elevated LDH, S100ß and liver enzymes. For ipilimumab, an increase in lymphocytes and eosinophils during course of treatment correlated with long-term survival. Our real-life experience shows that long-term survival is possible with using both therapeutic agents, vemurafenib and ipilimumab. Pattern of metastases and laboratory values might be of interest in decision making for a specific therapeutic approach. Combination of drugs and observational studies in larger patient cohorts are necessary to further validate our findings.

Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibition with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib for Patients with Advanced Melanoma

Acquired resistance is the most common cause of BRAF inhibitor monotherapy treatment failure, with the majority of patients experiencing disease progression with a median progression-free survival of 6-8 months. As such, there has been considerable focus on combined therapy with dual BRAF and MEK inhibition as a means to improve outcomes compared with monotherapy. In the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials, combined dabrafenib and trametinib was associated with significant improvements in outcomes compared with dabrafenib or vemurafenib monotherapy, in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. The combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib has also been investigated. In the phase III CoBRIM study in patients with unresectable stage III-IV BRAF-mutant melanoma, treatment with vemurafenib and cobimetinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib alone. One-year OS was 74.5% in the vemurafenib and cobimetinib group and 63.8% in the vemurafenib group, while 2-year OS rates were 48.3% and 38.0%, respectively. The combination was also well tolerated, with a lower incidence of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma compared with monotherapy. Dual inhibition of both MEK and BRAF appears to provide a more potent and durable anti-tumour effect than BRAF monotherapy, helping to prevent acquired resistance as well as decreasing adverse events related to BRAF inhibitor-induced activation of the MAPK-pathway. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition is the standard of care in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Comparative safety of BRAF and MEK inhibitors (vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib) in first-line therapy for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.

A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients diagnosed with serine/threonine-protein kinase B-Raf (BRAF)-mutated metastatic melanoma, who underwent first-line therapy with BRAF and mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors (vemurafenib, dabrafenib or a combination of dabrafenib and trametinib) at the Miguel Servet University Hospital (Zaragoza, Spain) between November, 2011 and August, 2015. The aim of this study was to analyse the toxicity produced by BRAF and MEK inhibitors. The most common toxicities were similar to those published in clinical trials, particularly arthralgia, alopecia and photosensitivity in the vemurafenib group; asthenia, hyperkeratosis and dry skin in the dabrafenib group; and diarrhoea and dry skin in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group. Toxicities that had not been described in clinical trials were also identified. Thus, the present study confirmed that the results obtained in clinical trials are similar to those obtained in clinical practice.

Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

The combination of cobimetinib with vemurafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo and vemurafenib in previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma, as previously reported in the coBRIM study. In this Article, we report updated efficacy results, including overall survival and safety after longer follow-up, and selected biomarker correlative studies. In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed BRAF(V600) mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive response system to receive cobimetinib (60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day rest period in each 28-day cycle) or placebo, in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). Progression-free and overall survival were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; all analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01689519, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants. Between Jan 8, 2013, and Jan 31, 2014, 495 eligible adult patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib group (n=247) or placebo plus vemurafenib group (n=248). At a median follow-up of 14·2 months (IQR 8·5-17·3), the updated investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 7·2 months (5·6-7·5) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46-0·72], p<0·0001). The final analysis for overall survival occurred when 255 (52%) patients had died (Aug 28, 2015). Median overall survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·3-not estimable) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 17·4 months (95% CI 15·0-19·8) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·90; p=0·005). The safety profile for cobimetinib and vemurafenib was tolerable and manageable, and no new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events occurring at a higher frequency in patients in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group compared with the vemurafenib group were γ-glutamyl transferase increase (36 [15%] in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group vs 25 [10%] in the placebo and vemurafenib group), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (30 [12%] vs one [<1%]), and alanine transaminase increase (28 [11%] vs 15 [6%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 92 patients (37%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 69 patients (28%) in the vemurafenib group. Pyrexia (six patients [2%]) and dehydration (five patients [2%]) were the most common serious adverse events reported in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group. A total of 259 patients have died: 117 (47%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 142 (58%) in the vemurafenib group. The primary cause of death was disease progression in most patients: 109 (93%) of 117 in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 133 (94%) of 142 in the vemurafenib group. These data confirm the clinical benefit of cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib and support the use of the combination as a standard first-line approach to improve survival in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma. F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

Improved Overall Survival in Melanoma with Combined Dabrafenib and Trametinib

BackgroundThe BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown efficacy as monotherapies in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Combining dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, enhanced antitumor activity in this population of patients.MethodsIn this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) or vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival.ResultsAt the preplanned interim overall survival analysis, which was performed after 77% of the total number of expected events occurred, the overall survival rate at 12 months was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67 to 77) in the combination-therapy group and 65% (95% CI, 59 to 70) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89; P=0.005). The prespecified interim stopping boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped for efficacy in July 2014. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the combination-therapy group and 7.3 months in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-therapy group and 51% in the vemurafenib group (P<0.001). Rates of severe adverse events and study-drug discontinuations were similar in the two groups. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma occurred in 1% of patients in the combination-therapy group and 18% of those in the vemurafenib group.ConclusionsDabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.)

Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAFV600E and BRAFV600K mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM-3): extended follow-up of a phase 3, randomised, open-label study

In the BRIM-3 trial, vemurafenib was associated with risk reduction versus dacarbazine of both death and progression in patients with advanced BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma. We present an extended follow-up analysis of the total population and in the BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) mutation subgroups. Patients older than 18 years, with treatment-naive metastatic melanoma and whose tumour tissue was positive for BRAF(V600) mutations were eligible. Patients also had to have a life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate haematological, hepatic, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned by interactive voice recognition system to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) of body surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (n=675), with data censored at crossover. A sensitivity analysis was done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01006980. 675 eligible patients were enrolled from 104 centres in 12 countries between Jan 4, 2010, and Dec 16, 2010. 337 patients were randomly assigned to receive vemurafenib and 338 to receive dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·7-16·0) on vemurafenib and 9·5 months (3·1-14·7) on dacarbazine. 83 (25%) of the 338 patients initially randomly assigned to dacarbazine crossed over from dacarbazine to vemurafenib. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the vemurafenib group than in the dacarbazine group (13·6 months [95% CI 12·0-15·2] vs 9·7 months [7·9-12·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·57-0·87]; p=0·0008), as was median progression-free survival (6·9 months [95% CI 6·1-7·0] vs 1·6 months [1·6-2·1]; HR 0·38 [95% CI 0·32-0·46]; p<0·0001). For the 598 (91%) patients with BRAF(V600E) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·9-14·9) compared with 10·0 months (8·0-14·0) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·93]; p=0·0085); median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·2-7·0) and 1·6 months (1·6-2·1), respectively (HR 0·39 [95% CI 0·33-0·47]; p<0·0001). For the 57 (9%) patients with BRAF(V600K) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 14·5 months (95% CI 11·2-not estimable) compared with 7·6 months (6·1-16·6) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·21-0·90]; p=0·024); median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·4-9·0) and 1·7 months (1·4-2·9), respectively (HR 0·30 [95% CI 0·16-0·56]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3-4 events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (65 [19%] of 337 patients) and keratoacanthomas (34 [10%]), rash (30 [9%]), and abnormal liver function tests (38 [11%]) in the vemurafenib group and neutropenia (26 [9%] of 287 patients) in the dacarbazine group. Eight (2%) patients in the vemurafenib group and seven (2%) in the dacarbazine group had grade 5 events. Inhibition of BRAF with vemurafenib improves survival in patients with the most common BRAF(V600E) mutation and in patients with the less common BRAF(V600K) mutation. F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

Vemurafenib (RG67204, PLX4032): A Potent, Selective BRAF Kinase Inhibitor

Vemurafenib is a potent inhibitor of the mutated BRAF kinase. Phase I and II clinical trials of vemurafenib showed response rates of more than 50% in patients with metastatic melanoma and BRAF mutation. A Phase III study comparing vemurafenib with dacarbazine in 675 previously untreated patients revealed overall survival to be 84% (95% CI: 78-89) in the vemurafenib group and 64% (95% CI: 56-73) in the dacarbazine group. Vemurafenib was associated with a relative reduction of 63% in the risk of death and 74% in the risk of either death or disease progression, as compared with dacarbazine (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer in those treated with vemurafenib (median: 5.3 vs 1.6 months; hazard ratio: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.20-0.33). Response rates were 48% for vemurafenib and 5% for dacarbazine. After review of the interim analysis by an independent data and safety monitoring board, crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib was recommended.

Improved Survival with Vemurafenib in Melanoma with BRAF V600E Mutation

Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of the BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib (PLX4032) have shown response rates of more than 50% in patients with metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. We conducted a phase 3 randomized clinical trial comparing vemurafenib with dacarbazine in 675 patients with previously untreated, metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary end points were rates of overall and progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the response rate, response duration, and safety. A final analysis was planned after 196 deaths and an interim analysis after 98 deaths. At 6 months, overall survival was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78 to 89) in the vemurafenib group and 64% (95% CI, 56 to 73) in the dacarbazine group. In the interim analysis for overall survival and final analysis for progression-free survival, vemurafenib was associated with a relative reduction of 63% in the risk of death and of 74% in the risk of either death or disease progression, as compared with dacarbazine (P<0.001 for both comparisons). After review of the interim analysis by an independent data and safety monitoring board, crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib was recommended. Response rates were 48% for vemurafenib and 5% for dacarbazine. Common adverse events associated with vemurafenib were arthralgia, rash, fatigue, alopecia, keratoacanthoma or squamous-cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, nausea, and diarrhea; 38% of patients required dose modification because of toxic effects. Vemurafenib produced improved rates of overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche; BRIM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01006980.).