Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Ana M. Arance
Based on 38 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, A. Arance wrote the following 38 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Guideline SEOM clinical guideline for the management of malignant melanoma (2017). 2018

Berrocal, A / Arance, A / Castellon, V E / de la Cruz, L / Espinosa, E / Cao, M G / Larriba, J L G / Márquez-Rodas, I / Soria, A / Algarra, S M. ·Servicio de Oncología Médica, Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Avda. Tres Cruces 2, 46014, Valencia, Spain. berrocal.alf@gmail.com. · Hospital Clinic I Provincial de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Hospital Torrecárdenas, Almería, Spain. · Complejo Hospitalario Regional Virgen Macaren, Seville, Spain. · Hospital Universitario la Paz, Madrid, Spain. · Hospital Universitario Quirón Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain. · Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. · Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. · Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. · Clínica Universitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. ·Clin Transl Oncol · Pubmed #29116432.

ABSTRACT: All melanoma suspected patients must be confirmed histologically and resected. Sentinel node biopsy must be done when tumor is over 1 mm or if less with high-risk factors. Adjuvant therapy with interferon could be offered for patients with high-risk melanoma and in selected cases radiotherapy can be added. Metastatic melanoma treatment is guided by mutational BRAF status. BRAF wild type patients must receive anti-PD1 containing therapy and BRAF mutated patients BRAF/MEK inhibitors or anti-PD1 containing therapy. Up to 10 years follow up is reasonable for melanoma patients with dermatologic examinations and physical exams.

2 Guideline Guidelines for biomarker testing in metastatic melanoma: a National Consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology. 2014

Martín-Algarra, S / Fernández-Figueras, M T / López-Martín, J A / Santos-Briz, A / Arance, A / Lozano, M D / Berrocal, A / Ríos-Martín, J J / Espinosa, E / Rodríguez-Peralto, J L / Anonymous3550772 / Anonymous3560772. ·Medical Oncology Department, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Avenida de Pio XII, 36, 31008, Pamplona, Spain, smalgarra@unav.es. ·Clin Transl Oncol · Pubmed #24129426.

ABSTRACT: This consensus statement, conceived as a joint initiative of the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), makes diagnostic and treatment recommendations for the management of patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma based on the current scientific evidence on biomarker use. This document thus provides an opportunity to improve healthcare efficiency and resource use, which will benefit these patients. Based on the data available so far, this expert group recommends routinely testing patients with metastatic melanoma for BRAF mutation status, as the result affects the subsequent therapeutic management of these patients. The analysis of genetic alterations in KIT may be reasonable in patients with primary tumours in acral or mucosal sites or on chronically sun-exposed skin, in an advanced condition, but not in patients with other types of melanomas. This panel believes that testing for other genetic alterations, such as NRAS mutation status in patients not carrying BRAF mutations, GNAQ/GNA11 mutational analysis or genetic alterations in PTEN, is not currently indicated as routine clinical practice, because the results do not influence treatment planning in these patients at the present time. Other important issues addressed in this document are the organisational requirements and quality controls needed for proper testing of these biomarkers, and the legal implications to be borne in mind.

3 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.

4 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.

5 Clinical Trial Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III or IV Melanoma. 2017

Weber, Jeffrey / Mandala, Mario / Del Vecchio, Michele / Gogas, Helen J / Arance, Ana M / Cowey, C Lance / Dalle, Stéphane / Schenker, Michael / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Butler, Marcus O / Middleton, Mark R / Maio, Michele / Atkinson, Victoria / Queirolo, Paola / Gonzalez, Rene / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Smylie, Michael / Meyer, Nicolas / Mortier, Laurent / Atkins, Michael B / Long, Georgina V / Bhatia, Shailender / Lebbé, Celeste / Rutkowski, Piotr / Yokota, Kenji / Yamazaki, Naoya / Kim, Tae M / de Pril, Veerle / Sabater, Javier / Qureshi, Anila / Larkin, James / Ascierto, Paolo A / Anonymous7111184. ·From New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York (J.W.) · Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo (M. Mandala), Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Milan (M.D.V.), Oncology Institute of Veneto Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padua (V.C.-S.), Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena (M. Maio), Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa (P.Q.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) - all in Italy · National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens (H.J.G.) · Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona (A.M.A.), and General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid (I.M.-R.) - both in Spain · Texas Oncology-Baylor Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.) · Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre Bénite (S.D.), Aix-Marseille University, Hospital de la Timone, Marseille (J.-J.G.), Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Toulouse (N.M.), Université Lille, INSERM Unité 1189, CHU Lille, Lille (L.M.), and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Dermatology and Centres d'Investigation Clinique, INSERM Unité 976, Hôpital Saint Louis, Université Paris Diderot, Paris (C.L.) - all in France · Oncology Center Sf. Nectarie, Craiova, Romania (M. Schenker) · Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto (M.O.B.), and Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB (M. Smylie) - both in Canada · the Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford (M.R.M.), and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London (J.L.) - both in the United Kingdom · Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation and University of Queensland, Queensland, VIC (V.A.), and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney (G.V.L.) - all in Australia · University of Colorado, Denver (R.G.) · Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta (R.R.K.) · Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC (M.B.A.) · University of Washington, Seattle (S.B.) · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.) · Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya (K.Y.), and the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo (N.Y.) - both in Japan · Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea (T.M.K.) · and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (V.P, J.S., A.Q.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #28891423.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. In the United States, ipilimumab has also been approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma on the basis of recurrence-free and overall survival rates that were higher than those with placebo in a phase 3 trial. We wanted to determine the efficacy of nivolumab versus ipilimumab for adjuvant therapy in patients with resected advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 906 patients (≥15 years of age) who were undergoing complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma to receive an intravenous infusion of either nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (453 patients) or ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (453 patients). The patients were treated for a period of up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, a report of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, the 12-month rate of recurrence-free survival was 70.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.1 to 74.5) in the nivolumab group and 60.8% (95% CI, 56.0 to 65.2) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.65; 97.56% CI, 0.51 to 0.83; P<0.001). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 14.4% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 45.9% of those in the ipilimumab group; treatment was discontinued because of any adverse event in 9.7% and 42.6% of the patients, respectively. Two deaths (0.4%) related to toxic effects were reported in the ipilimumab group more than 100 days after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma, adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events than adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 238 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02388906 ; Eudra-CT number, 2014-002351-26 .).

6 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.

7 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:

8 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.

9 Clinical Trial Open-label, multicentre safety study of vemurafenib in 3219 patients with BRAF 2017

Blank, Christian U / Larkin, James / Arance, Ana M / Hauschild, Axel / Queirolo, Paola / Del Vecchio, Michele / Ascierto, Paolo A / Krajsova, Ivana / Schachter, Jacob / Neyns, Bart / Garbe, Claus / Chiarion Sileni, Vanna / Mandalà, Mario / Gogas, Helen / Espinosa, Enrique / Hospers, Geke A P / Miller, Wilson H / Robson, Susan / Makrutzki, Martina / Antic, Vladan / Brown, Michael P. ·The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066CX, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.blank@nki.nl. · The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: James.Larkin@rmh.nhs.uk. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: AMARANCE@clinic.ub.es. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany. Electronic address: ahauschild@dermatology.uni-kiel.de. · IRCCS San Martino-IST, Genova, Italy. Electronic address: paola.queirolo@hsanmartino.it. · Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: Michele.delvecchio@istitutotumori.mi.it. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: paolo.ascierto@gmail.com. · General University Hospital, Dermatooncology U, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: Ivana.Krajsova@vfn.cz. · Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Oncology Institute, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Electronic address: Jacob.schachter@sheba.health.gov.il. · Afdelingshoofd, Medische Oncologie, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: bart.neyns@uzbrussel.be. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. Electronic address: claus.garbe@med.uni-tuebingen.de. · Oncology Institute of Veneto-IRCCS, Padova, Italy. Electronic address: vanna.chiarion@ioveneto.it. · Papa Giovanni XIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: mariomandala@tin.it. · University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Electronic address: hgogas@hol.gr. · Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: eespinosa00@hotmail.com. · University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: g.a.p.hospers@umcg.nl. · McGill University, Segal Cancer Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: wilsonmiller@gmail.com. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: susan.robson@roche.com. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: martina.makrutzki@roche.com. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: vladan.antic@roche.com. · Cancer Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia; Centre for Cancer Biology, SA Pathology and University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia; Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. Electronic address: MichaelP.brown@sa.gov.au. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28501764.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib is an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with metastatic melanoma harbouring BRAF METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre study of vemurafenib (960 mg bid) in patients with previously treated or untreated BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (cobas RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 32.2 months (95% CI, 31.1-33.2 months), 3079/3219 patients (96%) had discontinued treatment. Adverse events (AEs) were largely consistent with previous reports; the most common all-grade treatment-related AEs were arthralgia (37%), alopecia (25%) and hyperkeratosis (23%); the most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs were squamous cell carcinoma of the skin (8%) and keratoacanthoma (8%). In the exploratory analysis, patients with DOR ≥12 months (n = 287) or ≥24 months (n = 133) were more likely to experience grade 3/4 AEs than the overall population. No new specific safety signals were observed with longer vemurafenib exposure. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years' follow-up, safety was maintained in this large group of patients with BRAF

10 Clinical Trial Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study. 2017

Long, G V / Flaherty, K T / Stroyakovskiy, D / Gogas, H / Levchenko, E / de Braud, F / Larkin, J / Garbe, C / Jouary, T / Hauschild, A / Chiarion-Sileni, V / Lebbe, C / Mandalà, M / Millward, M / Arance, A / Bondarenko, I / Haanen, J B A G / Hansson, J / Utikal, J / Ferraresi, V / Mohr, P / Probachai, V / Schadendorf, D / Nathan, P / Robert, C / Ribas, A / Davies, M A / Lane, S R / Legos, J J / Mookerjee, B / Grob, J-J. ·Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, North Sydney, Australia. · Developmental Therapeutics and Melanoma Programs, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, USA. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital #62, Moscow, Russia. · First Department of Medicine, "Laiko" General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Russia. · Dipartimento di Medicina Oncologica, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Department of Dermatology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. · Service D'oncologie Médicale, Hopital Francois Mitterrand, Pau, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Melanoma and Oesophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Padova, Italy. · APHP Dermatology and CIC Departments, INSERM U976, University Paris Diderot, Paris, France. · Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Medical Oncology Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Clinical Hospital #4, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. · Skin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg, Mannheim and Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Medical Oncology A, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. · Dermatologisches Zentrum Buxtehude, Elbe Kliniken Buxtehude, Buxtehude, Germany. · Dnipropetrovsk Clinical Oncology Center of Dnipropetrovsk State Council, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK. · Gustave Roussy, Département de Médecine Oncologique, Service de Dermatologie et Université Paris-Sud, Faculté de Médecine, Villejuif, France. · Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, USA. · Melanoma Medical Oncology and Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, USA. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Timone, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #28475671.

ABSTRACT: Background: Previous analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients. Patients and methods: This double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results: Between 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting.

11 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.

12 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.

13 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with brain metastases: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2, multicentre study. 2017

McArthur, G A / Maio, M / Arance, A / Nathan, P / Blank, C / Avril, M-F / Garbe, C / Hauschild, A / Schadendorf, D / Hamid, O / Fluck, M / Thebeau, M / Schachter, J / Kefford, R / Chamberlain, M / Makrutzki, M / Robson, S / Gonzalez, R / Margolin, K. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. · AOU Senese Policlinico Santa Maria Alle Scotte, Siena, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Spain. · Mount Vernon Hospital, Centre for Cancer Treatment, Northwood, UK. · The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · University Paris Descartes, Hospital Cochin, APHP, Paris, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel. · Department of Dermatology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, USA. · Fachklinik Hornheide, Munster, Germany. · Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, USA. · Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Oncology Institute, Ramat-Gan, Israel. · Crown Princess Cancer Centre Westmead Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW, Australia. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, USA. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. · University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora. · City of Hope, Duarte, USA. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #27993793.

ABSTRACT: Background: Vemurafenib has shown activity in patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with brain metastases (BM). This phase 2 study evaluated vemurafenib in patients with/without prior treatment for BM. Methods: Patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with BM were enrolled into cohort 1 (previously untreated BM) and cohort 2 (previously treated BM) and received vemurafenib (960 mg BID) until disease progression (PD) or intolerance. Primary endpoint was best overall response rate (BORR) in the brain in cohort 1 that was evaluated using modified RECIST 1.1 criteria using lesions ≥0.5 cm to assess response. Results: 146 patients were treated (cohort 1 n = 90; cohort 2 n = 56), 62% of whom were male. Median (range) time since diagnosis of BM: 1.0 (0-9) month in cohort 1 and 4.2 (1-68) months in cohort 2. Median duration of treatment was 4.1 months (range 0.3-34.5) in cohort 1 and 4.1 months (range 0.2-27.6) in cohort 2. Intracranial BORR in cohort 1 by an independent review committee (IRC) was 18% (2 CRs, 14 PRs). Extracranial BORR by IRC was 33% in cohort 1 and 23% in cohort 2. Median PFS (brain only, investigator-assessed) was 3.7 months (range 0.03-33.4; IQR 1.9-5.6) in cohort 1 and 4.0 months (range 0.3-27.4; IQR 2.2-7.4) in cohort 2. Median OS was 8.9 months (range 0.6-34.5; IQR 4.9-17.0) in cohort 1 and 9.6 months (range 0.7-34.3; IQR 4.5-18.4) in cohort 2. Adverse events (AEs) were similar in type, grade and frequency to other studies of single-agent vemurafenib. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 59 (66%) patients in cohort 1 and 36 (64%) in cohort 2. Overall, 84% of patients died during the study (86% in cohort 1 and 80% in cohort 2), mainly due to disease progression. Conclusions: The study demonstrates clinically meaningful response rates of melanoma BM to vemurafenib, which was well tolerated and without significant CNS toxicity.

14 Clinical Trial Safety of vemurafenib in patients with BRAF 2016

Arance, A M / Berrocal, A / Lopez-Martin, J A / de la Cruz-Merino, L / Soriano, V / Martín Algarra, S / Alonso, L / Cerezuela, P / La Orden, B / Espinosa, E. ·Hospital Clínic and Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. AMARANCE@clinic.ub.es. · Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. · Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain. · Hospital Univ. Virgen de la Macarena de Sevilla, Seville, Spain. · Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain. · Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Navarra, Spain. · Hospital Clínico de Málaga, Malaga, Spain. · Hospital Universitario Santa Lucía de Cartagena, Cartagena, Spain. · Roche Farma, Madrid, Spain. · Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain. ·Clin Transl Oncol · Pubmed #26983408.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Vemurafenib tolerability was assessed in a large, open-label, multicentre study in patients with BRAF METHODS: Patients with previously treated or treatment-naive, unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV, BRAF RESULTS: 301 Spanish patients were included, 70 % with M1c disease, 22 % with brain metastases and 51 % with prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Most frequent adverse events included fatigue (48 %), arthralgia (45 %), rash (41 %), photosensitivity (34 %) and skin neoplasms (21 %). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (52 %), including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (including keratoacanthoma; 16 %), fatigue (6 %) and arthralgia (5 %). The ORR was 28 % (95 % CI 23-34 %). Responses occurred in patients with brain metastases (18 %), elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase (19 %) and poor performance status (15 %), and elderly patients (22 %). Median PFS was 5.8 (95 % CI 5.0-6.4) months; median OS was 10.5 (95 % CI 9.5-13.5) months. CONCLUSION: Our results for Spanish patients in the vemurafenib safety study indicate similar efficacy and a comparable safety profile in Spanish patients with no new safety signals compared with the overall population. Clinical benefit was demonstrated in poor-prognosis patients and in those with favourable baseline characteristics, suggesting that poor-prognosis patients may also benefit from vemurafenib treatment.

15 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.

16 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.).

17 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).

18 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.).

19 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.).

20 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.

21 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.

22 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.

23 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.

24 Article Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes among metastatic cutaneous melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab. 2018

Mohr, P / Ascierto, P / Arance, A / McArthur, G / Hernaez, A / Kaskel, P / Shinde, R / Stevinson, K. ·Elbe-Klinikum Buxtehude, Buxtehude, Germany. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Vic., Australia. · University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia. · Mapi, Stockholm, Sweden. · MSD SHARP & DOHME GMBH, Haar, Germany. · Merck & Co. Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. ·J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol · Pubmed #29044660.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes among advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapies including ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 antibody approved since 2011. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ipilimumab and postipilimumab treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma in Australia, Germany, Italy and Spain, following regulatory approval. METHODS: Retrospective multicentre, multinational, observational chart review study. Data were extracted from the start of ipilimumab therapy until the end of at least 40 weeks of follow-up, or death. RESULTS: Data from 371 patients (Australia, 103; Germany, 152; Italy, 76; Spain, 40) were analysed. Mean age was 65 years; 62% were male. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was 0 or 1 for 94%. In 67%, ipilimumab was initially received as second-line or later therapy. Patients received on average 3.4 ipilimumab doses. The ipilimumab-refractory cohort comprised of 226 patients. Of these, 17% in Australia, 47% in Germany, 29% in Italy and 14% in Spain received another antimelanoma treatment after ipilimumab including chemotherapy in 26% and BRAF/other kinase inhibitors in 11%. Ipilimumab-refractory patients who received postipilimumab treatment showed a 40% reduced hazard of dying than those not receiving treatment after ipilimumab (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43-0.83), after adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: During the time observed, ipilimumab was mainly used as second-line or later therapy. A significant proportion of patients received postipilimumab therapy, most of which was chemotherapy. Nevertheless, overall survival following progression on ipilimumab treatment remained poor, highlighting the need for research to develop more effective end-of-life treatment options.

25 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.

Next