Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Ana Arance
Based on 28 articles published since 2010
(Why 28 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, Ana Arance wrote the following 28 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Clinical Trial Survival Outcomes in Patients With Previously Untreated BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma Treated With Nivolumab Therapy: Three-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Phase 3 Trial. 2019

Ascierto, Paolo A / Long, Georgina V / Robert, Caroline / Brady, Benjamin / Dutriaux, Caroline / Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Mortier, Laurent / Hassel, Jessica C / Rutkowski, Piotr / McNeil, Catriona / Kalinka-Warzocha, Ewa / Savage, Kerry J / Hernberg, Micaela M / Lebbé, Celeste / Charles, Julie / Mihalcioiu, Catalin / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Mauch, Cornelia / Cognetti, Francesco / Ny, Lars / Arance, Ana / Svane, Inge Marie / Schadendorf, Dirk / Gogas, Helen / Saci, Abdel / Jiang, Joel / Rizzo, Jasmine / Atkinson, Victoria. ·Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Department of Medicine, Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Medical Oncology and Haematology, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Dermatology Service, University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. · UOC Oncological Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. · Clinique de Dermatologie, Unité d'Onco-Dermatologie, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1189, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Heidelberg and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland. · Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Melanoma Institute Australia, Camperdown, New South Wales. · Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. · Polish Mother's Memorial Hospital Research Institute, Lodz, Poland. · Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. · Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. · Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris Dermatology and Centre d'Investigation Clinique, University Paris Diderot INSERM U976, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France. · Institute for Advanced Biosciences, Université Grenoble Alpes/INSERM U1209/CNRS UMR 5309 Joint Research Center, Grenoble, France. · Dermatology Department, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Grenoble, France. · Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · Melanoma Cancer Unit, Istituto Oncologico Veneto, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padua, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. · Division of Oncology, Regina Elena Institute, Rome, Italy. · Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. · Hospital Clinic and Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, Barcelona, Spain. · Center for Cancer Immune Therapy, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark. · Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · First Department of Medicine, Laiko General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece. · Global Biometric Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey. · Oncology Clinical Development, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey. · Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia. · Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, Greenslopes Private Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland, Australia. ·JAMA Oncol · Pubmed #30422243.

ABSTRACT: Importance: This analysis provides long-term follow-up in patients with BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma receiving first-line therapy based on anti-programmed cell death 1 receptor inhibitors. Objective: To compare the 3-year survival with nivolumab vs that with dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This follow-up of a randomized phase 3 trial analyzed 3-year overall survival data from the randomized, controlled, double-blind CheckMate 066 phase 3 clinical trial. For this ongoing, multicenter academic institution trial, patients were enrolled from January 2013 through February 2014. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with confirmed unresectable previously untreated stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 but without a BRAF mutation. Interventions: Patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxic events with nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks plus nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). Main Outcome and Measure: Overall survival. Results: At minimum follow-ups of 38.4 months among 210 participants in the nivolumab group (median age, 64 years [range, 18-86 years]; 57.6% male) and 38.5 months among 208 participants in the dacarbazine group (median age, 66 years [range, 25-87 years]; 60.1% male), 3-year overall survival rates were 51.2% (95% CI, 44.1%-57.9%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 16.1%-27.6%), respectively. The median overall survival was 37.5 months (95% CI, 25.5 months-not reached) in the nivolumab group and 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6-13.0 months) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59; P < .001). Complete and partial responses, respectively, were reported for 19.0% (40 of 210) and 23.8% (50 of 210) of patients in the nivolumab group compared with 1.4% (3 of 208) and 13.0% (27 of 208) of patients in the dacarbazine group. Additional analyses were performed on outcomes with subsequent therapies. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 15.0% (31 of 206) of nivolumab-treated patients and in 17.6% (36 of 205) of dacarbazine-treated patients. There were no deaths due to study drug toxic effects. Conclusions and Relevance: Nivolumab led to improved 3-year overall survival vs dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01721772.

2 Clinical Trial Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2018

Dummer, Reinhard / Ascierto, Paolo A / Gogas, Helen J / Arance, Ana / Mandala, Mario / Liszkay, Gabriella / Garbe, Claus / Schadendorf, Dirk / Krajsova, Ivana / Gutzmer, Ralf / Chiarion Sileni, Vanna / Dutriaux, Caroline / de Groot, Jan Willem B / Yamazaki, Naoya / Loquai, Carmen / Moutouh-de Parseval, Laure A / Pickard, Michael D / Sandor, Victor / Robert, Caroline / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: reinhard.dummer@usz.ch. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Department of Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Dermato-oncology, University Hospital Prague and Charles University First Medical Faculty, Prague, Czech Republic. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Melanoma Cancer Unit, Oncology Institute of Veneto IRCCS, Padua, Italy. · Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux Cédex, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Isala, Zwolle, Netherlands. · Department of Dermatologic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. · Translational Clinical Oncology, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. · Array BioPharma, Boulder, CO, USA. · Service of Dermatology, Department of Medicine and Paris-Sud University, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Cedex, France. · Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #30219628.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib alone improved progression-free survival compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF METHODS: COLUMBUS was a two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma, BRAF FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive encorafenib plus binimetinib (n=192), encorafenib (n=194), or vemurafenib (n=191). Median follow-up for overall survival was 36·8 months (95% CI 35·9-37·5). Median overall survival was 33·6 months (95% CI 24·4-39·2) with encorafenib plus binimetinib and 16·9 months (14·0-24·5) with vemurafenib (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·47-0·79]; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events did not change substantially from the first report; those seen in more than 5% of patients treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (14 [7%]), and hypertension (12 [6%]); those seen with encorafenib alone were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and with vemurafenib the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). One death in the combination treatment group was considered by the investigator to be possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib provided clinically meaningful efficacy with good tolerability as shown by improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with vemurafenib. These data suggest that the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is likely to become an important therapeutic option in patients with BRAF FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

3 Clinical Trial Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. 2018

Dummer, Reinhard / Ascierto, Paolo A / Gogas, Helen J / Arance, Ana / Mandala, Mario / Liszkay, Gabriella / Garbe, Claus / Schadendorf, Dirk / Krajsova, Ivana / Gutzmer, Ralf / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Dutriaux, Caroline / de Groot, Jan Willem B / Yamazaki, Naoya / Loquai, Carmen / Moutouh-de Parseval, Laure A / Pickard, Michael D / Sandor, Victor / Robert, Caroline / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: reinhard.dummer@usz.ch. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Department of Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tüebingen, Tüebingen, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Dermato-oncology, University Hospital Prague, Charles University First Medical Faculty, Prague, Czech Republic. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Melanoma Cancer Unit, Oncology Institute of Veneto IRCCS, Padua, Italy. · Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Isala, Zwolle, Netherlands. · Department of Dermatologic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. · Translational Clinical Oncology, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. · Array BioPharma, Boulder, CO, USA. · Service of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Paris-Sud University, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29573941.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAF METHODS: 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 BRAF FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

4 Clinical Trial Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006). 2017

Schachter, Jacob / Ribas, Antoni / Long, Georgina V / Arance, Ana / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Mortier, Laurent / Daud, Adil / Carlino, Matteo S / McNeil, Catriona / Lotem, Michal / Larkin, James / Lorigan, Paul / Neyns, Bart / Blank, Christian / Petrella, Teresa M / Hamid, Omid / Zhou, Honghong / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Robert, Caroline. ·Division of Oncology, Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. Electronic address: jacob.schachter@sheba.health.gov.il. · Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology and Translational Research, Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Mater Hospital and Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Dermatology and Skin Cancer, Aix Marseille University, Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · Department of Dermatology, Université Lille, INSERM U1189, CHU Lille, F-59000, France. · Department of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, Melanoma Institute Australia, and The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and Melanoma Institute Australia, Camperdown, Australia. · Department of Melanoma and Cancer Immunotherapy, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. · Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology University of Manchester and the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology/Hematology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Department of Hematology/Oncology, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Department of BARDS, Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Department of Clinical Oncology, Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Department of Oncology, Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France. ·Lancet · Pubmed #28822576.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Interim analyses of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-006 study showed superior overall and progression-free survival of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. We present the final protocol-specified survival analysis. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, UK, and USA). We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to one of two dose regimens of pembrolizumab, or one regimen of ipilimumab, using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule. Treatment assignments used blocked randomisation within strata. Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (excluding ocular melanoma), and up to one previous systemic therapy (excluding anti-CTLA-4, PD-1, or PD-L1 agents). Secondary eligibility criteria are described later. Patients were excluded if they had active brain metastases or active autoimmune disease requiring systemic steroids. The primary outcome was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause). Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review at week 12, then every 6 weeks up to week 48, and then every 12 weeks thereafter. Survival was assessed every 12 weeks, and final analysis occurred after all patients were followed up for at least 21 months. Primary analysis was done on the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients) and safety analyses were done in the treated population (all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). Data cutoff date for this analysis was Dec 3, 2015. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients with advanced melanoma were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive intravenous pembrolizumab every 2 weeks (n=279), intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (n=277), or intravenous ipilimumab every 3 weeks (ipilimumab for four doses; n=278). One patient in the pembrolizumab 2 week group and 22 patients in the ipilimumab group withdrew consent and did not receive treatment. A total of 811 patients received at least one dose of study treatment. Median follow-up was 22·9 months; 383 patients died. Median overall survival was not reached in either pembrolizumab group and was 16·0 months with ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68, 95% CI 0·53-0·87 for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks vs ipilimumab; p=0·0009 and 0·68, 0·53-0·86 for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks vs ipilimumab; p=0·0008). 24-month overall survival rate was 55% in the 2-week group, 55% in the 3-week group, and 43% in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Substantiating the results of the interim analyses of KEYNOTE-006, pembrolizumab continued to provide superior overall survival versus ipilimumab, with no difference between pembrolizumab dosing schedules. These conclusions further support the use of pembrolizumab as a standard of care for advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

5 Clinical Trial Phase I Dose-Escalation and -Expansion Study of the BRAF Inhibitor Encorafenib (LGX818) in Metastatic 2017

Delord, Jean-Pierre / Robert, Caroline / Nyakas, Marta / McArthur, Grant A / Kudchakar, Ragini / Mahipal, Amit / Yamada, Yasuhide / Sullivan, Ryan / Arance, Ana / Kefford, Richard F / Carlino, Matteo S / Hidalgo, Manuel / Gomez-Roca, Carlos / Michel, Daniela / Seroutou, Abdelkader / Aslanis, Vassilios / Caponigro, Giordano / Stuart, Darrin D / Moutouh-de Parseval, Laure / Demuth, Tim / Dummer, Reinhard. ·Institut Universitaire du Cancer, Toulouse, France. delord.jean-pierre@iuct-oncopole.fr. · Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France. · Oslo University Hospital, Norway. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the University of Melbourne, Australia. · Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. · Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. · National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Medical Oncology and Translational Genomics and Targeted Therapeutics in Solid Tumors, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. · Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre Westmead Hospital, Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) and Centro Integral Oncologico Clara Campal, Madrid, Spain. · Institut Universitaire du Cancer, Toulouse, France. · Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. · Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts. · University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #28611198.

ABSTRACT:

6 Clinical Trial Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF 2017

Davies, Michael A / Saiag, Philippe / Robert, Caroline / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Flaherty, Keith T / Arance, Ana / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Thomas, Luc / Lesimple, Thierry / Mortier, Laurent / Moschos, Stergios J / Hogg, David / Márquez-Rodas, Iván / Del Vecchio, Michele / Lebbé, Céleste / Meyer, Nicolas / Zhang, Ying / Huang, Yingjie / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Long, Georgina V. ·Melanoma Medical Oncology and Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: mdavies@mdanderson.org. · Service de Dermatologie Générale et Oncologique, Hôpital A Paré, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Boulogne Billancourt, France; EA 4340, Université Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Boulogne Billancourt, France. · Gustave Roussy, Département de Médecine Oncologique, Service de Dermatologie et Université Paris-Sud, Faculté de Médecine, Villejuif, France. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Timone, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France. · Developmental Therapeutics and Melanoma Programs, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Carrer de Villarroel, Barcelona, Spain. · Melanoma and Oesophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Padova, Italy. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France. · Oncologie Dermatologique, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France. · Clinique de Dermatologie, Unité d'Onco-Dermatologie, Le Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, University Lille 2, Lille, France. · Melanoma Program, Medical Oncology, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. · Clinical Cancer Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Servicio de Oncología Médica; Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain. · Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. · APHP Dermatology and CIC Departments, INSERM U976, University Paris Diderot, Hôpital Saint Louis Paris, Paris, France. · Medical Oncology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28592387.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Dabrafenib plus trametinib improves clinical outcomes in BRAF METHODS: This ongoing, multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study evaluated oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice per day) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once per day) in four patient cohorts with melanoma brain metastases enrolled from 32 hospitals and institutions in Europe, North America, and Australia: (A) BRAF FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2014, and Aug 5, 2016, 125 patients were enrolled in the study: 76 patients in cohort A; 16 patients in cohort B; 16 patients in cohort C; and 17 patients in cohort D. At the data cutoff (Nov 28, 2016) after a median follow-up of 8·5 months (IQR 5·5-14·0), 44 (58%; 95% CI 46-69) of 76 patients in cohort A achieved an intracranial response. Intracranial response by investigator assessment was also achieved in nine (56%; 95% CI 30-80) of 16 patients in cohort B, seven (44%; 20-70) of 16 patients in cohort C, and ten (59%; 33-82) of 17 patients in cohort D. The most common serious adverse events related to study treatment were pyrexia for dabrafenib (eight [6%] of 125 patients) and decreased ejection fraction (five [4%]) for trametinib. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of study drug relationship, were pyrexia (four [3%] of 125) and headache (three [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib plus trametinib was active with a manageable safety profile in this melanoma population that was consistent with previous dabrafenib plus trametinib studies in patients with BRAF FUNDING: Novartis.

7 Clinical Trial Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. 2017

Ascierto, Paolo A / Del Vecchio, Michele / Robert, Caroline / Mackiewicz, Andrzej / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Arance, Ana / Lebbé, Céleste / Bastholt, Lars / Hamid, Omid / Rutkowski, Piotr / McNeil, Catriona / Garbe, Claus / Loquai, Carmen / Dreno, Brigitte / Thomas, Luc / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Liszkay, Gabriella / Nyakas, Marta / Gutzmer, Ralf / Pikiel, Joanna / Grange, Florent / Hoeller, Christoph / Ferraresi, Virginia / Smylie, Michael / Schadendorf, Dirk / Mortier, Laurent / Svane, Inge Marie / Hennicken, Delphine / Qureshi, Anila / Maio, Michele. ·Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: paolo.ascierto@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy. · Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris, Villejuif, France. · Department of Diagnostics and Cancer Immunology, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan Medical University, Poznan, Poland. · IOV-IRCCS, Melanoma Oncology Unit, Padova, Italy. · Hospital Clinic and Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer, Barcelona, Spain. · AP-HP Dermatology CIC Departments, Saint-Louis Hospital, INSERM U976, Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France. · Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland. · Chris O'Brien Lifehouse and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany. · University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. · Department of Oncodermatology, INSERM Research Unit 892, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France. · Department of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France. · Hospital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. · Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany. · Wojewodzkie Centrum Oncologii, Gdańsk, Poland. · Department of Dermatology, Reims University Hospital, Reims, France. · Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri, Rome, Italy. · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada. · University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Hôspital Claude Huriez, Lille, France. · Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. · University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena, Italy. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28359784.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit-risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01515189. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6-42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9-29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6-17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9-13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

8 Clinical Trial Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2017

Dummer, Reinhard / Schadendorf, Dirk / Ascierto, Paolo A / Arance, Ana / Dutriaux, Caroline / Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Rutkowski, Piotr / Del Vecchio, Michele / Gutzmer, Ralf / Mandala, Mario / Thomas, Luc / Demidov, Lev / Garbe, Claus / Hogg, David / Liszkay, Gabriella / Queirolo, Paola / Wasserman, Ernesto / Ford, James / Weill, Marine / Sirulnik, L Andres / Jehl, Valentine / Bozón, Viviana / Long, Georgina V / Flaherty, Keith. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: reinhard.dummer@usz.ch. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Via Mariano Semmola, Naples, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux, France. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Viale Bracci, Siena, Italy. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian, Milan, Italy. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Lyons Cancer Research Center, Lyon 1 University, Pierre Bénite, France. · N N Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russian Federation. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. · Department of Medicine, University Health Network/Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Department of Dermatology, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, IRCCS San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi, Genova, Italy. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, One Health Plaza, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. · Array BioPharma, Boulder, CO, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28284557.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma. METHODS: NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4-4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8-3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5-1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. INTERPRETATION: Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. FUNDING: Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

9 Clinical Trial Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. 2015

Long, Georgina V / Stroyakovskiy, Daniil / Gogas, Helen / Levchenko, Evgeny / de Braud, Filippo / Larkin, James / Garbe, Claus / Jouary, Thomas / Hauschild, Axel / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Lebbe, Celeste / Mandalà, Mario / Millward, Michael / Arance, Ana / Bondarenko, Igor / Haanen, John B A G / Hansson, Johan / Utikal, Jochen / Ferraresi, Virginia / Kovalenko, Nadezhda / Mohr, Peter / Probachai, Volodymr / Schadendorf, Dirk / Nathan, Paul / Robert, Caroline / Ribas, Antoni / DeMarini, Douglas J / Irani, Jhangir G / Swann, Suzanne / Legos, Jeffrey J / Jin, Fan / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Flaherty, Keith. ·Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital, Moscow, Russia. · Department of Medicine, University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Russia. · Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Saint André, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. · University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Aix-Marseille University and APHM Hospital CHU Timone, Marseille, France. · Melanoma and Oesophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Padua, Italy. · APHP Dermatology CIC Hôpital Saint Louis, University Paris Diderot, INSERM U976, Paris, France. · Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Hospital Avenue, Perth, WA, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic and Translational Genomics and Targeted Therapeutics in Solid Tumors, Barcelona, Spain. · Dnepropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. · University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany; German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena, Rome, Italy. · Volograd Regional Oncology Dispensary #3, Volzhsky, Russia. · Elbe Klinikum Stade, Stade, Germany. · Dnipropetrovsk Clinical Oncology Center of Dnipropetrovsk State Council, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK. · Gustave Roussy, Villejuif-Paris-Sud, France; Paris Sud University, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. · David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston MA, USA. ·Lancet · Pubmed #26037941.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Previously, a study of ours showed that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib improves progression-free survival compared with dabrafenib and placebo in patients with BRAF Val600Lys/Glu mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. The study was continued to assess the secondary endpoint of overall survival, which we report in this Article. METHODS: We did this double-blind phase 3 study at 113 sites in 14 countries. We enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Participants were computer-randomised (1:1) to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily), or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and overall survival was a secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01584648. FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2012, and Nov 30, 2012, we screened 947 patients for eligibility, of whom 423 were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib and trametinib (n=211) or dabrafenib only (n=212). The final data cutoff was Jan 12, 2015, at which time 222 patients had died. Median overall survival was 25·1 months (95% CI 19·2-not reached) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 18·7 months (15·2-23·7) in the dabrafenib only group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·55-0·92; p=0·0107). Overall survival was 74% at 1 year and 51% at 2 years in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 68% and 42%, respectively, in the dabrafenib only group. Based on 301 events, median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 8·0-13·9) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 8·8 months (5·9-9·3) in the dabrafenib only group (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·53-0·84; p=0·0004; unadjusted for multiple testing). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 181 (87%) of 209 patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 189 (90%) of 211 patients in the dabrafenib only group; the most common was pyrexia (108 patients, 52%) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group, and hyperkeratosis (70 patients, 33%) in the dabrafenib only group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 67 (32%) patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 66 (31%) patients in the dabrafenib only group. INTERPRETATION: The improvement in overall survival establishes the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib as the standard targeted treatment for BRAF Val600 mutation-positive melanoma. Studies assessing dabrafenib and trametinib in combination with immunotherapies are ongoing. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

10 Clinical Trial Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. 2015

Robert, Caroline / Schachter, Jacob / Long, Georgina V / Arance, Ana / Grob, Jean Jacques / Mortier, Laurent / Daud, Adil / Carlino, Matteo S / McNeil, Catriona / Lotem, Michal / Larkin, James / Lorigan, Paul / Neyns, Bart / Blank, Christian U / Hamid, Omid / Mateus, Christine / Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie / Kosh, Michele / Zhou, Honghong / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ribas, Antoni / Anonymous4340827. ·The authors' affiliations are listed in the Appendix. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #25891173.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Pembrolizumab inhibits the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint and has antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, we assigned 834 patients with advanced melanoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks. Primary end points were progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: The estimated 6-month progression-free-survival rates were 47.3% for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 46.4% for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and 26.5% for ipilimumab (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.58; P<0.001 for both pembrolizumab regimens versus ipilimumab; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.46 to 0.72 and 0.47 to 0.72, respectively). Estimated 12-month survival rates were 74.1%, 68.4%, and 58.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for death for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.83; P=0.0005; hazard ratio for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P=0.0036). The response rate was improved with pembrolizumab administered every 2 weeks (33.7%) and every 3 weeks (32.9%), as compared with ipilimumab (11.9%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Responses were ongoing in 89.4%, 96.7%, and 87.9% of patients, respectively, after a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Efficacy was similar in the two pembrolizumab groups. Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 to 5 severity were lower in the pembrolizumab groups (13.3% and 10.1%) than in the ipilimumab group (19.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01866319.).

11 Clinical Trial Health-related quality of life impact in a randomised phase III study of the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600 metastatic melanoma. 2015

Schadendorf, Dirk / Amonkar, Mayur M / Stroyakovskiy, Daniil / Levchenko, Evgeny / Gogas, Helen / de Braud, Filippo / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Bondarenko, Igor / Garbe, Claus / Lebbe, Celeste / Larkin, James / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Millward, Michael / Arance, Ana / Mandalà, Mario / Flaherty, Keith T / Nathan, Paul / Ribas, Antoni / Robert, Caroline / Casey, Michelle / DeMarini, Douglas J / Irani, Jhangir G / Aktan, Gursel / Long, Georgina V. ·Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, Essen 45147, Germany. Electronic address: Dirk.Schadendorf@uk-essen.de. · GlaxoSmithKline, 1250 S Collegeville Rd, Collegeville, PA 19426, United States. Electronic address: mayur.m.amonkar@gsk.com. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital #62, Moscow 143423, Russia. Electronic address: sdaniel@mail.ru. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, 68 Leningradskaya Street, Saint Petersburg 197758, Russia. Electronic address: levchenko@newmail.ru. · University of Athens, Aghiou Thoma 17, Athens 11527, Greece. Electronic address: hgogas@hol.gr. · Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, via Giacomo Venezian, 1, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: filippo.debraud@istitutotumori.mi.it. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Sainte-Marguerite, 270 Boulevard de Sainte-Marguerite, Marseille 13009, France. Electronic address: jean-jacques.grob@ap-hm.fr. · Dnepropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dzerzhyns'koho Street 9, Dnepropetrovsk 49044, Ukraine. Electronic address: oncology@dsma.dp.ua. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Liebermeisterstraße 25, Tuebingen 72076, Germany. Electronic address: claus.garbe@med.uni-tuebingen.de. · APHP Dermatology CIC Hôpital Saint Louis, University Paris Diderot, INSERM U976, Avenue Claude Vellefaux, Paris 75010, France. Electronic address: celeste.lebbe@sls.aphp.fr. · Royal Marsden Hospital, Fulham Road, London SW3 6JJ, United Kingdom. Electronic address: james.larkin@rmh.nhs.uk. · Melanoma and Esophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, via Gattamelata, 64, Padua 35128, Italy. Electronic address: mgaliz@tiscali.it. · Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Hospital Avenue, Perth, WA 6009, Australia. Electronic address: michael.millward@uwa.edu.au. · Hospital Clinic, Carrer Villarroel 170, Barcelona 08036, Spain. Electronic address: amarance@clinic.ub.es. · Papa Giovanni XIII Hospital, Piazza OMS 1, Bergamo 24127, Italy. Electronic address: mmandala@hpg23.it. · Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, 55 Fruit St, Boston 02114, MA, United States. Electronic address: kflaherty@partners.org. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Rickmansworth Road, Northwood HA6 2RN, United Kingdom. Electronic address: p.nathan@nhs.net. · David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles 90095, CA, United States. Electronic address: aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. · Gustave Roussy and Paris 11 University, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif-Paris-Sud 94805, France. Electronic address: Caroline.Robert@igr.fr. · GlaxoSmithKline, 1250 S Collegeville Rd, Collegeville, PA 19426, United States. Electronic address: meshellcasey@yahoo.com. · GlaxoSmithKline, 1250 S Collegeville Rd, Collegeville, PA 19426, United States. Electronic address: douglas.j.demarini@gsk.com. · GlaxoSmithKline, 1250 S Collegeville Rd, Collegeville, PA 19426, United States. Electronic address: jhangir.g.irani@gsk.com. · GlaxoSmithKline, 1250 S Collegeville Rd, Collegeville, PA 19426, United States. Electronic address: gursel.aktan@gmail.com. · Melanoma Institute Australia & The University of Sydney, 40 Rocklands Road, Sydney 2060, Australia. Electronic address: georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #25794603.

ABSTRACT: AIM: To present the impact of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the double-blind, randomised phase III COMBI-d study that investigated the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-d showed significantly prolonged progression-free survival for the combination. METHODS: HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, a generic cancer questionnaire (completed at baseline, during study treatment, at progression and post progression) assessing various dimensions (global health/QoL, functional status, and symptom impact). A mixed-model, repeated-measures analyses of covariance evaluated differences between arms. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rates were >95% at baseline, >85% to week 40 and >70% at disease progression. Baseline scores across both arms were comparable for all dimensions. Global health dimension scores were significantly better at weeks 8, 16 and 24 for patients receiving the combination during treatment and at progression. The majority of functional dimension scores (physical, social, role, emotional and cognitive functioning) trended in favour of the combination. Pain scores were significantly improved and clinically meaningful (6-13 point difference) for patients receiving the combination for all follow-up assessments versus those receiving dabrafenib monotherapy. For other symptom dimensions (nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, and constipation), scores trended in favour of dabrafenib monotherapy. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib provides better preservation of HRQoL and pain improvements versus dabrafenib monotherapy while also delaying progression. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT01584648).

12 Clinical Trial Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. 2015

Robert, Caroline / Long, Georgina V / Brady, Benjamin / Dutriaux, Caroline / Maio, Michele / Mortier, Laurent / Hassel, Jessica C / Rutkowski, Piotr / McNeil, Catriona / Kalinka-Warzocha, Ewa / Savage, Kerry J / Hernberg, Micaela M / Lebbé, Celeste / Charles, Julie / Mihalcioiu, Catalin / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Mauch, Cornelia / Cognetti, Francesco / Arance, Ana / Schmidt, Henrik / Schadendorf, Dirk / Gogas, Helen / Lundgren-Eriksson, Lotta / Horak, Christine / Sharkey, Brian / Waxman, Ian M / Atkinson, Victoria / Ascierto, Paolo A. ·The authors' affiliations are listed in the Appendix. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #25399552.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS: We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

13 Clinical Trial Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma. 2014

Long, Georgina V / Stroyakovskiy, Daniil / Gogas, Helen / Levchenko, Evgeny / de Braud, Filippo / Larkin, James / Garbe, Claus / Jouary, Thomas / Hauschild, Axel / Grob, Jean Jacques / Chiarion Sileni, Vanna / Lebbe, Celeste / Mandalà, Mario / Millward, Michael / Arance, Ana / Bondarenko, Igor / Haanen, John B A G / Hansson, Johan / Utikal, Jochen / Ferraresi, Virginia / Kovalenko, Nadezhda / Mohr, Peter / Probachai, Volodymyr / Schadendorf, Dirk / Nathan, Paul / Robert, Caroline / Ribas, Antoni / DeMarini, Douglas J / Irani, Jhangir G / Casey, Michelle / Ouellet, Daniele / Martin, Anne-Marie / Le, Ngocdiep / Patel, Kiran / Flaherty, Keith. ·The authors' affiliations are listed in the Appendix. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #25265492.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition, as compared with BRAF inhibition alone, delays the emergence of resistance and reduces toxic effects in patients who have melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 423 previously untreated patients who had unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily) or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response rate, response duration, and safety. A preplanned interim overall survival analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months in the dabrafenib-trametinib group and 8.8 months in the dabrafenib-only group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the dabrafenib-trametinib group, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.99; P=0.03). The overall response rate was 67% in the dabrafenib-trametinib group and 51% in the dabrafenib-only group (P=0.002). At 6 months, the interim overall survival rate was 93% with dabrafenib-trametinib and 85% with dabrafenib alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.94; P=0.02). However, a specified efficacy-stopping boundary (two-sided P=0.00028) was not crossed. Rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups, although more dose modifications occurred in the dabrafenib-trametinib group. The rate of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was lower in the dabrafenib-trametinib group than in the dabrafenib-only group (2% vs. 9%), whereas pyrexia occurred in more patients (51% vs. 28%) and was more often severe (grade 3, 6% vs. 2%) in the dabrafenib-trametinib group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, improved the rate of progression-free survival in previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT01584648.).

14 Clinical Trial A randomized, open-label clinical trial of tasisulam sodium versus paclitaxel as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2014

Hamid, Omid / Ilaria, Robert / Garbe, Claus / Wolter, Pascal / Maio, Michele / Hutson, Thomas E / Arance, Ana / Lorigan, Paul / Lee, Jeeyun / Hauschild, Axel / Mohr, Peter / Hahka-Kemppinen, Marjo / Kaiser, Christopher / Turner, P Kellie / Conti, Ilaria / Grob, Jean-Jacques. ·The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. ·Cancer · Pubmed #24676877.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Tasisulam sodium (hereafter referred to as tasisulam) is a novel, highly albumin-bound agent that demonstrated activity in a phase 2 melanoma study. METHODS: In this open-label phase 3 study, patients with AJCC stage IV melanoma received tasisulam (targeting an albumin-corrected exposure of 1200-6400 h (hour).μg/mL on day 1) or paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15) every 28 days as second-line treatment. RESULTS: The study was placed on clinical hold after randomization of 336 patients when a safety review indicated an imbalance of possibly drug-related deaths in the tasisulam arm. Efficacy results for tasisulam versus paclitaxel revealed a response rate of 3.0% versus 4.8%, a median progression-free survival of 1.94 months versus 2.14 months (P = .048), and a median overall survival of 6.77 months versus 9.36 months (P = .121). The most common drug-related grade ≥3 laboratory toxicities (graded according to Common Terminology for Adverse Events [version 3.0]) were thrombocytopenia (18.9%) for patients treated with tasisulam and neutropenia/leukopenia (8.7%) among those receiving paclitaxel. There were 13 possibly related deaths reported to occur on the study, with the majority occurring during cycle 2 in the setting of grade 4 myelosuppression, all in the tasisulam arm. Investigation of the unexpectedly high rate of hematologic toxicity revealed a subset of patients with low tasisulam clearance, leading to drug accumulation and high albumin-corrected exposure in cycle 2. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study was stopped early because of safety issues in the tasisulam arm, tasisulam was considered unlikely to be superior to paclitaxel, and paclitaxel activity in the second-line treatment of melanoma was much lower than expected. The toxicity imbalance was attributed to an unexpectedly low tasisulam clearance in a subset of patients, underscoring the importance of pharmacokinetic monitoring of compounds with complex dosing, even in late-phase studies.

15 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicentre, safety study. 2014

Larkin, James / Del Vecchio, Michele / Ascierto, Paolo A / Krajsova, Ivana / Schachter, Jacob / Neyns, Bart / Espinosa, Enrique / Garbe, Claus / Sileni, Vanna Chiarion / Gogas, Helen / Miller, Wilson H / Mandalà, Mario / Hospers, Geke A P / Arance, Ana / Queirolo, Paola / Hauschild, Axel / Brown, Michael P / Mitchell, Lada / Veronese, Luisa / Blank, Christian U. ·Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: james.larkin@rmh.nhs.uk. · Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Dermatooncology Department, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. · Ella Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. · Service of Oncology-Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. · Universität Tübingen-Hautklinik, Tübingen, Germany. · Melanoma Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute, Gattamelata, Padova, Italy. · Medical Oncology, University of Athens, Greece. · Lady Davis Institute and Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. · Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. · IRCCS San Martino Hospital-IST, Genoa, Italy. · University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Dermatology, Kiel, Germany. · Cancer Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, and Centre for Cancer Biology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, SA, Australia. · F Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland. · Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: c.blank@nki.nl. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #24582505.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, compared with dacarbazine, shows improved response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma that has a BRAF(V600) mutation. We assessed vemurafenib in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma with BRAF(V600) mutations who had few treatment options. METHODS: In an open-label, multicentre study, patients with untreated or previously treated melanoma and a BRAF(V600) mutation received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was safety. All analyses were done on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of vemurafenib. This report is the third interim analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307397. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2013, 3226 patients were enrolled in 44 countries. 3222 patients received at least one dose of vemurafenib (safety population). At data cutoff, 868 (27%) patients were on study treatment and 2354 (73%) had withdrawn, mainly because of disease progression. Common adverse events of all grades included rash (1592 [49%]), arthralgia (1259 [39%]), fatigue (1093 [34%]), photosensitivity reaction (994 [31%]), alopecia (826 [26%]), and nausea (628 [19%]). 1480 (46%) patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (389 [12%]), rash (155 [5%]), liver function abnormalities (165 [5%]), arthralgia (106 [3%]), and fatigue (93 [3%]). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were reported more frequently in patients aged 75 years and older (n=257; 152 [59%, 95% CI 53-65] and ten [4%, 2-7], respectively) than in those younger than 75 years (n=2965; 1286 [43%, 42-45] and 82 [3%, 2-3], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Vemurafenib safety in this diverse population of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma, who are more representative of routine clinical practice, was consistent with the safety profile shown in the pivotal trials of this drug. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

16 Clinical Trial Selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment for BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma: a phase 2 double-blind randomised study. 2013

Robert, Caroline / Dummer, Reinhard / Gutzmer, Ralf / Lorigan, Paul / Kim, Kevin B / Nyakas, Marta / Arance, Ana / Liszkay, Gabriella / Schadendorf, Dirk / Cantarini, Mireille / Spencer, Stuart / Middleton, Mark R. ·Institute Gustave Roussy, Paris, France. caroline.robert@igr.fr ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #23735514.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic melanoma, 50% of whose tumours harbour a BRAF mutation, have a poor prognosis. Selumetinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and in preclinical models when combined with chemotherapy. This study was designed to look for a signal of improved efficacy by comparing the combination of selumetinib and dacarbazine with dacarbazine alone. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study investigated selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned by central interactive voice response system (1:1 ratio, block size four) to take either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21-day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle). Patients, investigators, and the study team were masked to the treatment assigned. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00936221. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2009, and April 8, 2010, 91 patients were randomly assigned to receive dacarbazine in combination with selumetinib (n=45) or placebo (n=46). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (median 13·9 months, 80% CI 10·2-15·6, in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group and 10·5 months, 9·6-14·7, in the placebo plus dacarbazine group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 80% CI 0·67-1·28, one-sided p=0·39). However, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group versus the placebo plus dacarbazine group (HR 0·63, 80% CI 0·47-0·84, one-sided p=0·021), with a median of 5·6 months (80% CI 4·9-5·9) versus 3·0 months (2·8-4·6), respectively. The most frequent adverse events included nausea (28 [64%] of 44 patients on selumetinib vs 25 [56%] of 45 on placebo), acneiform dermatitis (23 [52%] vs one [2%]), diarrhoea (21 [48%] vs 13 [29%]), vomiting (21 [48%] vs 15 [33%]), and peripheral oedema (19 [43%] vs three [7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (six [14%] patients in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group vs four [9%] in the placebo plus dacarbazine group). INTERPRETATION: Selumetinib plus dacarbazine showed clinical activity in patients with BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma, reflected by a significant benefit in progression-free survival compared with placebo plus dacarbazine group, although no significant change in overall survival was noted. The tolerability of this combination was generally consistent with monotherapy safety profiles. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

17 Article Update on tolerability and overall survival in COLUMBUS: landmark analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib vs vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. 2020

Ascierto, Paolo A / Dummer, Reinhard / Gogas, Helen J / Flaherty, Keith T / Arance, Ana / Mandala, Mario / Liszkay, Gabriella / Garbe, Claus / Schadendorf, Dirk / Krajsova, Ivana / Gutzmer, Ralf / de Groot, Jan Willem B / Loquai, Carmen / Gollerkeri, Ashwin / Pickard, Michael D / Robert, Caroline. ·Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: paolo.ascierto@gmail.com. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center and University Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. · Department of Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Dermato-oncology, University Hospital Prague and Charles University First Medical Faculty, Prague, Czech Republic. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Department of Medical Oncology, Isala, Zwolle, Netherlands. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. · Pfizer Inc., Boulder, CO, USA. · Service of Dermatology, Department of Medicine and Paris-Sud University, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #31901705.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations are established treatments for BRAF V600-mutant melanoma based on demonstrated benefits on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Here, we report an updated analysis of the COLUMBUS (COmbined LGX818 [encorafenib] Used with MEK162 [binimetinib] in BRAF mutant Unresectable Skin cancer) trial with long-term follow-up. METHODS: In part 1 of the COLUMBUS trial, 577 patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, untreated or progressed after first-line immunotherapy, were randomised 1:1:1 to 450 mg of encorafenib QD + 45 mg of binimetinib BID (COMBO450) vs 960 mg of vemurafenib BID (VEM) or 300 mg of encorafenib ENCO QD (ENCO300). An updated analysis was conducted that included PFS, OS, objective response rate, safety and tolerability and analyses of results by prognostic subgroups. RESULTS: At data cutoff, there were 116, 113 and 138 deaths in the COMBO450, ENCO300 and VEM treatment arms, respectively. The median OS was 33.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.4-39.2) for COMBO450, 23.5 months (95% CI, 19.6-33.6) for ENCO300 and 16.9 months (95% CI, 14.0-24.5) for VEM. Compared with VEM, COMBO450 decreased the risk of death by 39% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). The updated median PFS for COMBO450 was 14.9 months (95% CI, 11.0-20.2), ENCO300 was 9.6 months (95% CI, 7.4-14.8) and VEM was 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.9). PFS was longer for COMBO450 vs VEM (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67). Landmark OS and PFS results show consistent results for each year analysed. Subgroups all favoured COMBO450 vs VEM. CONCLUSIONS: Updated PFS and OS results for COMBO450 from the COLUMBUS trial demonstrate a long-term benefit in patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutated melanoma.

18 Article Adverse events associated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in the COLUMBUS study: incidence, course and management. 2019

Gogas, Helen J / Flaherty, Keith T / Dummer, Reinhard / Ascierto, Paolo A / Arance, Ana / Mandala, Mario / Liszkay, Gabriella / Garbe, Claus / Schadendorf, Dirk / Krajsova, Ivana / Gutzmer, Ralf / Sileni, Vanna Chiarion / Dutriaux, Caroline / de Groot, Jan Willem B / Yamazaki, Naoya / Loquai, Carmen / Gollerkeri, Ashwin / Pickard, Michael D / Robert, Caroline. ·Department of Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon Hospital, Athens, Greece. Electronic address: helgogas@gmail.com. · Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center and University Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany, and German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Dermato-oncology, University Hospital Prague and Charles University First Medical Faculty, Prague, Czech Republic. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Melanoma Cancer Unit, Oncology Institute of Veneto IRCCS, Padua, Italy. · Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Isala, Zwolle, Netherlands. · Department of Dermatologic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. · Array BioPharma Inc., Boulder, CO, USA. · Service of Dermatology, Department of Medicine and Paris-Sud University, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #31437754.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated. RESULTS: The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event. CONCLUSION: Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38).

19 Article Rechallenge with BRAF-directed treatment in metastatic melanoma: A multi-institutional retrospective study. 2018

Valpione, Sara / Carlino, Matteo S / Mangana, Johanna / Mooradian, Meghan J / McArthur, Grant / Schadendorf, Dirk / Hauschild, Axel / Menzies, Alexander M / Arance, Ana / Ascierto, Paolo A / Di Giacomo, AnnaMaria / de Rosa, Francesco / Larkin, James / Park, John J / Goldinger, Simone M / Sullivan, Ryan J / Xu, Wen / Livingstone, Elisabeth / Weichenthal, Michael / Rai, Rajat / Gaba, Lydia / Long, Georgina V / Lorigan, Paul. ·The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; CRUK Manchester Institute, Manchester, UK. · Melanoma Institute Australia and the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, Westmead, Australia. · University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. · University Hospital Essen, Essen and German Cancer Consortium, Germany. · Schleswig-Holstein University Hospital, Kiel, Germany. · Melanoma Institute Australia and the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Australia. · Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori "Fondazione G. Pascale"-IRCCS, Naples, Italy. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy University Hospital of Siena, Siena, Italy. · IRCCS - IRST (Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per Lo Studio e La Cura Dei Tumori), Meldola, Italy. · The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Melanoma Institute Australia and the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, and University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: paul.lorigan@christie.nhs.uk. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #29360604.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Most metastatic melanoma patients treated with BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) ± MEK inhibitors (MEKi) eventually progress on treatment. Along with acquired resistance due to genetic changes, epigenetic mechanisms that could be reversed after BRAFi discontinuation have been described. The purpose of this study was to analyse retrospectively outcomes for patients retreated with BRAF-directed therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred sixteen metastatic melanoma patients who received BRAFi-based therapy and, after a break, were rechallenged with BRAFi ± MEKi at 14 centres in Europe, US and Australia were studied, respectively. Response rate (RR), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of retreatment were calculated. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment was 9.4 months for first BRAFi ± MEKi treatment and 7.7 months for the subsequent treatment (immunotherapy 72%, other 17%, drug holiday 11%) after BRAFi discontinuation. Brain metastases were present in 51 (44%) patients at BRAFi retreatment. The RR to rechallenge with BRAFi ± MEKi was 43.3%: complete response (CR) 2.6%, partial response (PR) 40.7%, stable disease (SD) 24.8% and progressive disease 31.9%, 3 missing. Of 83 patients who previously discontinued BRAFi due to disease progression, 31 (37.3%) responded (30 PR and 1 CR) to retreatment. The median OS from retreatment was 9.8 months, and PFS was 5 months. Independent prognostic factors for survival at rechallenge included number of metastatic sites (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32 for each additional organ with metastases, P < .001), lactic dehydrogenase (HR = 1.37 for each multiple of the upper normal limit, P < .001), while rechallenge with combination BRAFi + MEKi conferred a better OS versus BRAFi alone (HR = 0.5, P = .006). CONCLUSION: Rechallenge with BRAFi ± MEKi results in a clinically meaningful benefit and should be considered for selected patients.

20 Article Dabrafenib plus trametinib for compassionate use in metastatic melanoma: A STROBE-compliant retrospective observational postauthorization study. 2017

Martín Algarra, Salvador / Soriano, Virtudes / Fernández-Morales, Luis / Berciano-Guerrero, Miguel-Ángel / Mujika, Karmele / Manzano, José Luis / Puértolas Hernández, Teresa / Soria, Ainara / Rodríguez-Abreu, Delvys / Espinosa Arranz, Enrique / Medina Martínez, Javier / Márquez-Rodas, Ivan / Rubió-Casadevall, Jordi / Ortega, María Eugenia / Jurado García, José Miguel / Lecumberri Biurrun, María José / Palacio, Isabel / Rodríguez de la Borbolla Artacho, María / Altozano, Javier Pérez / Castellón Rubio, Victoria Eugenia / García, Almudena / Luna, Pablo / Ballesteros, Anabel / Fernández, Ovidio / López Martín, Jose Antonio / Berrocal, Alfonso / Arance, Ana. ·Medical Oncology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona. · Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia. · Medical Oncology, Parc Taulí Sabadell Hospital Universitario, Sabadell. · Oncología Intercentros, Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria (HURyVV) and Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (IBIMA), Málaga. · Onkologikoa, Instituto Oncológico de Kutxa, San Sebastian. · Instituto Catalán de Oncología, ICO-Badalona, Hospital Germans Trías I Pujol, Barcelona. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid. · Medical Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular-Materno Infantil de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Virgen de la Salud, Toledo. · Medical Oncology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid. · Instituto Catalán de Oncología Girona, Girona. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Arnau de Vilanova, Lleida. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Cecilio, Granada. · Medical Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Nuestra Señora de Valme, Sevilla. · Medical Oncology, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Alicante. · Medical Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Torrecárdenas de Almería, Almería. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid. · Medical Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Ourense, Ourense. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid. · Medical Oncology, Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia. · Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. ·Medicine (Baltimore) · Pubmed #29384960.

ABSTRACT: The main objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib alone or combined with trametinib for compassionate use in patients with metastatic melanoma.This retrospective, observational study involved 135 patients with unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma from an expanded-access program at 30 Spanish centers.Forty-eight patients received dabrafenib monotherapy and 87 received combination dabrafenib and trametinib; 4.4% and 95.6% of the patients had stage IIIC and IV melanoma, respectively. All patients showed BRAF mutations in their primary or metastatic lesions; 3 were positive for V600K while the remainder had V600E or V600+. A positive response to treatment was reported in 89.3% of the patients. Overall survival rates at 12 and 24 months were 59.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.5-68.9%) and 36.4% (95% CI, 27.8-45%), respectively. Progression-free survival rates at 12 and 24 months were 39.3% (95% CI, 31.1-47.5%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 14.5-28.7%), respectively. Fifty-seven patients (42.2%) reported cutaneous toxicity of any type, mainly hyperkeratosis (14.8%) and rash (11.9%). The most frequent adverse events were pyrexia (27.4%), asthenia (19.3%), arthralgia (16.9%), and diarrhoea (13.2%).Our results suggest that both dabrafenib alone or in combination with trametinib are effective for compassionate use in terms of response and/or survival rates. However, differences in patients' prognostic features ought to be considered. No new findings were revealed regarding the safety profiles of either regimen. This is the first study to evaluate the efficacy of these 2 selective BRAF and mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinase inhibitors in a real-world setting in Spain.

21 Article Health Care Resource Utilization and Associated Costs Among Metastatic Cutaneous Melanoma Patients Treated with Ipilimumab (INTUITION Study). 2017

McArthur, Grant A / Mohr, Peter / Ascierto, Paolo Antonio / Arance, Ana / Banos Hernaez, Ana / Kaskel, Peter / Weichenthal, Michael / Shinde, Reshma / Stevinson, Kendall. ·Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia. · Elbe-Klinikum Buxtehude, Buxtehude, Germany. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Mapi, Stockholm, Sweden. · MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Haar, Germany. · Universitäts-Hautklinik Kiel, Kiel, Germany. · Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA. · Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA kendall_stevinson@merck.com. ·Oncologist · Pubmed #28526721.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There are limited real-world data on health care resource utilization (HCRU) among advanced melanoma patients. The objective of this study was to describe HCRU and health care costs associated with the management of advanced melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab. METHODS: This retrospective multinational, observational study included advanced melanoma patients from Australia, Germany, Italy, and Spain who had received at least 1 dose of ipilimumab. Data extracted from medical charts included inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, surgical procedures, laboratory investigations, radiation therapy, imaging studies, and concomitant medications. Cost estimates were based on unit costs from country-specific standard reimbursement sources. Subgroup analyses were performed for BRAF mutation status and ipilimumab refractory patients, who had disease progression within 24 weeks of their last dose of ipilimumab. RESULTS: Mean age of 362 enrolled patients was 60.6 years (standard deviation [SD] 14.4). During a median follow-up period of 30.2 weeks, 57% of patients were admitted to hospital and 16% underwent surgery. Health care resource utilization rates varied substantially across countries and were highest in Germany. Concomitant medications to treat adverse events were commonly used. Subgroup analyses showed higher utilization rates among ipilimumab refractory and BRAF mutant patients. Mean weekly total costs associated with HCRU were lower in the pre-progression period (€107; 95% confidence interval (CI): 79-145) than in the post-progression period (€216; 95% CI: 180-259). CONCLUSION: Health care resource utilization pattern and associated costs among patients treated with ipilimumab varied greatly among countries and between pre- and post-progression periods. There is a high economic burden associated with ipilimumab refractory melanoma. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Metastatic melanoma patients treated with the anti-CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab have a high utilization of various types of health care services, such as inpatient hospital stays or doctor visits. There are differences across countries regarding patterns of health care utilization and economic burden of the disease. Health care services are used more frequently after patients experience progression of their disease. The study highlights that better therapies leading to durable response in patients with metastatic melanoma have the potential to decrease health care costs and patient burden in terms of hospitalizations and other health care services.

22 Article Immune-Related Gene Expression Profiling After PD-1 Blockade in Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma, Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma, and Melanoma. 2017

Prat, Aleix / Navarro, Alejandro / Paré, Laia / Reguart, Noemí / Galván, Patricia / Pascual, Tomás / Martínez, Alex / Nuciforo, Paolo / Comerma, Laura / Alos, Llucia / Pardo, Nuria / Cedrés, Susana / Fan, Cheng / Parker, Joel S / Gaba, Lydia / Victoria, Iván / Viñolas, Nuria / Vivancos, Ana / Arance, Ana / Felip, Enriqueta. ·Translational Genomics and Targeted Therapeutics in Solid Tumors, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. alprat@clinic.cat. · Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Translational Genomics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. · Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. · Translational Genomics and Targeted Therapeutics in Solid Tumors, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. · Molecular Oncology Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. · Pathology Department, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Bioinformatics, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. · Cancer Genomics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. ·Cancer Res · Pubmed #28487385.

ABSTRACT: Antibody targeting of the immune checkpoint receptor PD1 produces therapeutic activity in a variety of solid tumors, but most patients exhibit partial or complete resistance to treatment for reasons that are unclear. In this study, we evaluated tumor specimens from 65 patients with melanoma, lung nonsquamous, squamous cell lung or head and neck cancers who were treated with the approved PD1-targeting antibodies pembrolizumab or nivolumab. Tumor RNA before anti-PD1 therapy was analyzed on the nCounter system using the PanCancer 730-Immune Panel, and we identified 23 immune-related genes or signatures linked to response and progression-free survival (PFS). In addition, we evaluated intra- and interbiopsy variability of PD1, PD-L1, CD8A, and CD4 mRNAs and their relationship with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) and PD-L1 IHC expression. Among the biomarkers examined, PD1 gene expression along with 12 signatures tracking CD8 and CD4 T-cell activation, natural killer cells, and IFN activation associated significantly with nonprogressive disease and PFS. These associations were independent of sample timing, drug used, or cancer type. TIL correlated moderately (∼0.50) with PD1 and CD8A mRNA levels and weakly (∼0.35) with CD4 and PD-L1. IHC expression of PD-L1 correlated strongly with PD-L1 (0.90), moderately with CD4 and CD8A, and weakly with PD1. Reproducibility of gene expression in intra- and interbiopsy specimens was very high (total SD <3%). Overall, our results support the hypothesis that identification of a preexisting and stable adaptive immune response as defined by mRNA expression pattern is reproducible and sufficient to predict clinical outcome, regardless of the type of cancer or the PD1 therapeutic antibody administered to patients.

23 Article Development of Cutaneous Toxicities During Selective Anti-BRAF Therapies: Preventive Role of Combination with MEK Inhibitors. 2017

Erfan, Gamze / Puig, Susana / Carrera, Cristina / Arance, Ana / Gaba, Lydia / Victoria, Ivan / Garcia-Herrera, Adriana / Alos, Llucia / Malvehy, Josep. ·Dermatology Department, Melanoma Unit, Hospital Clinic and IDIBAPS (Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, Barcelona, Spain. ·Acta Derm Venereol · Pubmed #27353949.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

24 Article Life-threatening colitis and complete response with ipilimumab in a patient with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma and rheumatoid arthritis. 2016

Aya, Francisco / Gaba, Lydia / Victoria, Ivan / Fernandez-Martinez, Aranzazu / Ruiz-Esquide, Virginia / Pineda, Estela / Tosca, Monica / Viladot, Margarita / Pereira, Veronica / Malvehy, Josep / Prat, Aleix / Arance, Ana. ·Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Translational Genomics and Targeted Therapeutics in Solid Tumors, Institut d'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Institut d'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. · Institut d'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain; Department of Dermatology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. ·ESMO Open · Pubmed #27843587.

ABSTRACT: Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA4 antibody), have become a commonly used therapy in cancer. To date, safety data of patients with underlying autoimmune disease is limited. We present a case of a patient with rheumatoid arthritis who was diagnosed of a BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. The patient was treated with ipilimumab and presented with high-grade colitis requiring immunosuppressors. Despite of the immune-related adverse event, no exacerbation of the rheumatoid arthritis was observed and the patient achieved a complete response. This case report contributes to the scarce literature on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with an underlying autoimmune condition.

25 Article Ipilimumab after progression on anti-PD-1 treatment in advanced melanoma. 2016

Aya, Francisco / Gaba, Lydia / Victoria, Iván / Fernández-Martínez, Aranzazu / Tosca, Mónica / Prat, Aleix / Arance, Ana. ·Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Villaroel 170, 08036 Barcelona, Spain. · Targeted Therapeutics & Translational Genomics in Solid Tumors, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS) Barcelona, Spain. ·Future Oncol · Pubmed #27581765.

ABSTRACT: AIM: While both efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1 agents seem to be independent of previous treatment with anti-CTLA-4, limited data exist of efficacy and toxicity of ipilimumab after progression on anti-PD-1 therapy. This retrospective analysis describes the efficacy and safety of sequential therapy with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma who progressed on anti-PD-1 antibody. METHODS: Nine patients who progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy received four cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Two out of nine patients (2/9; 22.2%) showed a partial response, and seven patients (7/9; 77.8%) experienced disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 3.14 months (95% CI: 2.56-3.71), and the median overall survival since the start of anti-PD-1 therapy was 16.8 months (95% CI: 8.1-25.4). Five (5/9; 55.6%) patients experienced grade 3 immune-related adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: In this small retrospective series of cases, the efficacy of ipilimumab post-anti-PD-1 was similar to that described in the previous reports on ipilimumab.

Next