Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Rene C. Gonzalez
Based on 65 articles published since 2009
(Why 65 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, Rene Gonzalez wrote the following 65 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3
1 Guideline NCCN Guidelines Insights: Melanoma, Version 3.2016. 2016

Coit, Daniel G / Thompson, John A / Algazi, Alain / Andtbacka, Robert / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daniels, Gregory A / DiMaio, Dominick / Fields, Ryan C / Fleming, Martin D / Gastman, Brian / Gonzalez, Rene / Guild, Valerie / Johnson, Douglas / Joseph, Richard W / Lange, Julie R / Martini, Mary C / Materin, Miguel A / Olszanski, Anthony J / Ott, Patrick / Gupta, Aparna Priyanath / Ross, Merrick I / Salama, April K / Skitzki, Joseph / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Torres-Roca, Javier F / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole / Engh, Anita. ·From Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Aim at Melanoma; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Duke Cancer Institute; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Stanford Cancer Institute; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #27496110.

ABSTRACT: The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on a number of novel agents and treatment regimens. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy in patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma.

2 Guideline Melanoma, Version 2.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2016

Coit, Daniel G / Thompson, John A / Algazi, Alain / Andtbacka, Robert / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daniels, Gregory A / DiMaio, Dominick / Ernstoff, Marc / Fields, Ryan C / Fleming, Martin D / Gonzalez, Rene / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Joseph, Richard W / Lange, Julie R / Martini, Mary C / Materin, Miguel A / Olszanski, Anthony J / Ross, Merrick I / Salama, April K / Skitzki, Joseph / Sosman, Jeff / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Torres-Roca, Javier F / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole / Engh, Anita. · ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #27059193.

ABSTRACT: This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Melanoma focuses on adjuvant therapy and treatment of in-transit disease, because substantial changes were made to the recommendations for the 2016 update. Depending on the stage of the disease, options for adjuvant therapy now include biochemotherapy and high-dose ipilimumab. Treatment options for in-transit disease now include intralesional injection with talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a new immunotherapy. These additions prompted re-assessment of the data supporting older recommended treatment options for adjuvant therapy and in-transit disease, resulting in extensive revisions to the supporting discussion sections.

3 Guideline Melanoma, version 4.2014. 2014

Coit, Daniel G / Thompson, John A / Andtbacka, Robert / Anker, Christopher J / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daniels, Gregory A / Daud, Adil / Dimaio, Dominick / Fleming, Martin D / Gonzalez, Rene / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Kelley, Mark C / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Lange, Julie R / Martini, Mary C / Olszanski, Anthony J / Ross, Merrick I / Salama, April / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole R / Ho, Maria / Anonymous5170793. ·From 1Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; 2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; 3Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; 4University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; 5The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; 6UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; 7UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; 8Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; 9St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; 10University of Colorado Cancer Center; 11Aim at Melanoma; 12Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; 13Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; 14Roswell Park Cancer Institute; 15Moffitt Cancer Center; 16The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; 17Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; 18Fox Chase Cancer Center; 19The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; 20Duke Cancer Institute; 21Stanford Cancer Institute; 22Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; 23City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; 24University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; and 25National Comprehensive Cancer Network. ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #24812131.

ABSTRACT: The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of patients with melanoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight notable recent updates. Dabrafenib and trametinib, either as monotherapy (category 1) or combination therapy, have been added as systemic options for patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma harboring BRAF V600 mutations. Controversy continues regarding the value of adjuvant radiation for patients at high risk of nodal relapse. This is reflected in the category 2B designation to consider adjuvant radiation following lymphadenectomy for stage III melanoma with clinically positive nodes or recurrent disease.

4 Guideline The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on tumour immunotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma. 2013

Kaufman, Howard L / Kirkwood, John M / Hodi, F Stephen / Agarwala, Sanjiv / Amatruda, Thomas / Bines, Steven D / Clark, Joseph I / Curti, Brendan / Ernstoff, Marc S / Gajewski, Thomas / Gonzalez, Rene / Hyde, Laura Jane / Lawson, David / Lotze, Michael / Lutzky, Jose / Margolin, Kim / McDermott, David F / Morton, Donald / Pavlick, Anna / Richards, Jon M / Sharfman, William / Sondak, Vernon K / Sosman, Jeffrey / Steel, Susan / Tarhini, Ahmad / Thompson, John A / Titze, Jill / Urba, Walter / White, Richard / Atkins, Michael B. ·Rush University Cancer Center, 1725 West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. ·Nat Rev Clin Oncol · Pubmed #23982524.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy is associated with durable clinical benefit in patients with melanoma. The goal of this article is to provide evidence-based consensus recommendations for the use of immunotherapy in the clinical management of patients with high-risk and advanced-stage melanoma in the USA. To achieve this goal, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer sponsored a panel of melanoma experts--including physicians, nurses, and patient advocates--to develop a consensus for the clinical application of tumour immunotherapy for patients with melanoma. The Institute of Medicine clinical practice guidelines were used as a basis for this consensus development. A systematic literature search was performed for high-impact studies in English between 1992 and 2012 and was supplemented as appropriate by the panel. This consensus report focuses on issues related to patient selection, toxicity management, clinical end points and sequencing or combination of therapy. The literature review and consensus panel voting and discussion were used to generate recommendations for the use of immunotherapy in patients with melanoma, and to assess and rate the strength of the supporting evidence. From the peer-reviewed literature the consensus panel identified a role for interferon-α2b, pegylated-interferon-α2b, interleukin-2 (IL-2) and ipilimumab in the clinical management of melanoma. Expert recommendations for how to incorporate these agents into the therapeutic approach to melanoma are provided in this consensus statement. Tumour immunotherapy is a useful therapeutic strategy in the management of patients with melanoma and evidence-based consensus recommendations for clinical integration are provided and will be updated as warranted.

5 Review A review of novel therapies for melanoma. 2014

Karimkhani, Chante / Gonzalez, Rene / Dellavalle, Robert P. ·Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. ·Am J Clin Dermatol · Pubmed #24928310.

ABSTRACT: This review summarizes results from major recent trials regarding novel therapeutic agents in melanoma. The topics discussed include targeted therapy with BRAF (V-RAF murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B) inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib), MEK (mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase) inhibitors (trametinib), bcr-abl/c-kit/PDGF-R inhibitors (imatinib), and angiogenesis inhibitors (bevacizumab and aflibercept), as well as immunotherapy with anti-CTLA-4 (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4) antibodies (ipilimumab), anti-PD (anti-programmed death receptor) antibodies (nivolumab and lambrolizumab), and anti-PD-L (anti-programmed death ligand) antibodies. Various combinations of these agents, as well as adjunctive GM-CSF (granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor), T-VEC (talimogene laherparepvec) oncolytic viruses, and novel chemotherapeutic agents, are also described. Despite the tremendous advances that these novel treatments have created, optimal therapeutic agent selection remains a highly individualized decision. Melanoma therapy has vastly progressed since the days when dacarbazine was the sole option for advanced melanoma patients. The molecular understanding of melanoma pathogenesis has yielded a brighter future for advanced melanoma patients.

6 Review New targeted therapies in melanoma. 2013

Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Gonzalez, Rene / Lewis, Karl. ·Department of Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Ragini.Kudchadkar@Moffitt.org. ·Cancer Control · Pubmed #24077404.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The previous 2 years have been an exciting time in melanoma research, due in part to the approval of vemurafenib and ipilimumab for advanced melanoma. Increased knowledge of the molecular biology leading to melanoma has led to the development of several new agents that target specific oncogenes. METHODS: The authors review the latest developments in signal transduction inhibitors and in immune modulators for the treatment of melanoma. Investigational agents currently in development are also discussed. RESULTS: Vemurafenib and ipilimumab have improved overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. Many new agents are in development, including programmed death-1 antibodies and combination signal transduction inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: A recognition of the genetic diversity of melanoma and a better understanding of the immune system have resulted in improvements in overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. Refractory cases remain challenging, and combination therapies are being explored in an effort to overcome resistance mechanisms. New molecular targets need to be identified to help the subset of patients who do not harbor BRAF mutations.

7 Review Novel therapies in melanoma. 2011

Scheier, Benjamin / Amaria, Rodabe / Lewis, Karl / Gonzalez, Rene. ·Box B177, 1665 Aurora Court, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA. ·Immunotherapy · Pubmed #22091682.

ABSTRACT: The incidence of cutaneous melanoma is on the rise worldwide despite increasing awareness and vigilance towards prevention by the lay public and health professionals. Melanoma is easily curable by surgical excision when detected early, but it is nearly incurable when discovered in its later stages owing to resistance to treatment. Unfortunately, treatment options traditionally used in melanoma have not shown a survival benefit. However, as the understanding of tumor biology and metastatic growth evolves, new therapeutic options for metastatic melanoma have shown impressive survival benefit. The blockade of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) by use of the monoclonal antibody, ipilimumab (Yervoy™, Bristol-Myers Squibb), produces favorable antitumor immune system responses and was recently approved by the US FDA for use in patients with advanced melanoma. In addition, targeting components of the MAPK pathway have also demonstrated survival advantage in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma and vemurafenib (Zelboraf™, Plexxikon/Roche) was approved by the FDA in August 2011 for the first-line treatment of both metastatic and unresectable melanomas for patients whose tumors have V600E mutations in the BRAF gene.

8 Clinical Trial Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib in BRAF-mutated melanoma patients. 2019

Sullivan, Ryan J / Hamid, Omid / Gonzalez, Rene / Infante, Jeffrey R / Patel, Manish R / Hodi, F Stephen / Lewis, Karl D / Tawbi, Hussein A / Hernandez, Genevive / Wongchenko, Matthew J / Chang, YiMeng / Roberts, Louise / Ballinger, Marcus / Yan, Yibing / Cha, Edward / Hwu, Patrick. ·Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. rsullivan7@mgh.harvard.edu. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. · Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN, USA. · Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, Sarasota, FL, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA. ·Nat Med · Pubmed #31171876.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma treatment has progressed in the past decade with the development and approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4, as well as small molecule inhibitors of BRAF and/or MEK for the subgroup of patients with BRAF

9 Clinical Trial Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2018

Hodi, Frank Stephen / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Gonzalez, Rene / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Rutkowski, Piotr / Cowey, Charles Lance / Lao, Christopher D / Schadendorf, Dirk / Wagstaff, John / Dummer, Reinhard / Ferrucci, Pier Francesco / Smylie, Michael / Hill, Andrew / Hogg, David / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / Jiang, Joel / Rizzo, Jasmine / Larkin, James / Wolchok, Jedd D. ·Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: stephen_hodi@dfci.harvard.edu. · Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy. · University of Colorado Cancer Center, Denver, CO, USA. · Aix-Marseille University and APHM Hospital CHU Timone, Marseille, France. · Maria Skłodowska-Curie Institute - Oncology Centre, Warsaw, Poland. · Texas Oncology-Baylor Charles A Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA. · Department of Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University of Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · The College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK. · Department of Dermatology, Universitäts Spital, Zürich, Switzerland. · European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada. · Tasman Oncology Research, Southport, QLD, Australia. · Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. · General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. · The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #30361170.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Previously reported results from the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial showed a significant improvement in objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this report is to provide 4-year updated efficacy and safety data from this study. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III or stage IV melanoma, known BRAF FINDINGS: Between July 3, 2013, and March 31, 2014, 945 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=314), nivolumab (n=316), or ipilimumab (n=315). Median follow-up was 46·9 months (IQR 10·9-51·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·0 months (10·5-51·4) in the nivolumab group, and 18·6 months (7·6-49·5) in the ipilimumab group. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months from the date that the final patient was enrolled and randomised, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 38·2-not reached) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·9 months (28·3-not reached) in the nivolumab group, and 19·9 months (16·9-24·6) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for death for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·54 (95% CI 0·44-0·67; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·65 (0·53-0·79; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·7-19·3) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 6·9 months (5·1-10·2) in the nivolumab group, and 2·9 months (2·8-3·2) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·42 (95% CI 0·35-0·51; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·53 (0·44-0·64; p<0·0001). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 185 (59%) of 313 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 70 (22%) of 313 who received nivolumab, and 86 (28%) of 311 who received ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were diarrhoea in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (29 [9%] of 313) and in the nivolumab group (nine [3%] of 313) and colitis in the ipilimumab group (23 [7%] of 311); the most common grade 4 adverse event in all three groups was increased lipase (15 [5%] of 313 in the combination group, ten [3%] of 313 in the nivolumab group, and four [1%] of 311 in the ipilimumab group). Serious adverse events were not analysed for the 4-year follow-up. In total for the study, there were four treatment-related deaths: two in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (one cardiomyopathy and one liver necrosis), one in the nivolumab group (neutropenia), and one in the ipilimumab group (colon perforation). No additional treatment-related deaths have occurred since the previous (3-year) analysis. INTERPRETATION: The results of this analysis at 4 years of follow-up show that a durable, sustained survival benefit can be achieved with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

10 Clinical Trial Targeting myeloid-derived suppressor cells using all-trans retinoic acid in melanoma patients treated with Ipilimumab. 2018

Tobin, Richard P / Jordan, Kimberly R / Robinson, William A / Davis, Dana / Borges, Virginia F / Gonzalez, Rene / Lewis, Karl D / McCarter, Martin D. ·University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, USA. Electronic address: richard.tobin@ucdenver.edu. · University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; Department of Immunology and Microbiology, USA. Electronic address: kimberly.jordan@ucdenver.edu. · University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, USA; University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: william.robinson@ucdenver.edu. · University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, USA. Electronic address: dana.davis@ucdenver.edu. · University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, USA; Young Women's Breast Cancer Translational Program, USA; University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: virginia.borges@ucdenver.edu. · University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, USA; University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: rene.gonzalez@ucdenver.edu. · University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, USA; University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: karl.lewis@ucdenver.edu. · University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, USA; University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: martin.mccarter@ucdenver.edu. ·Int Immunopharmacol · Pubmed #30121453.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved overall survival rates for many cancers, yet the majority of patients do not respond to treatment and succumb to disease progression. One tumor-related mechanism limiting the efficacy of immunotherapies in melanoma is the recruitment and expansion of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs). Therefore, targeting MDSCs in combination with immunotherapies is an attractive strategy to improve response rates and effectiveness. METHODS: We tested this strategy by designing a randomized phase II clinical trial treating advanced melanoma patients with either Ipilimumab monotherapy or Ipilimumab plus all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA). Clinicaltrails.gov identifier (NCT02403778). The frequency of circulating MDSCs and the activation of CD8(+) T cells was measured by flow cytometry. Expression of immunosuppressive genes was measured with quantitative real time-PCR. T cell suppressive functions were measured by mixed lymphocyte reaction. RESULTS: Here we show that in vitro treatment with ATRA decreases immunosuppressive function of MDSCs in mixed lymphocyte reactions. Additionally, ATRA reduces the expression of immunosuppressive genes including PD-L1, IL-10, and indoleamine 2,3‑dioxygenase by MDSCs. Furthermore, the addition of ATRA to standard of care Ipilimumab therapy appears safe, as ATRA did not increase the frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Finally, ATRA significantly decreased the frequency of circulating MDSCs compared to Ipilimumab treatment alone in advanced-stage melanoma patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate the importance of MDSCs in immunotherapy resistance and provide evidence that targeting MDSCs in cancer patients may augment immunotherapeutic approaches.

11 Clinical Trial Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With BRAF V600-Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Who Received Dabrafenib Combined With Trametinib. 2018

Long, Georgina V / Eroglu, Zeynep / Infante, Jeffrey / Patel, Sapna / Daud, Adil / Johnson, Douglas B / Gonzalez, Rene / Kefford, Richard / Hamid, Omid / Schuchter, Lynn / Cebon, Jonathan / Sharfman, William / McWilliams, Robert / Sznol, Mario / Redhu, Suman / Gasal, Eduard / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Weber, Jeffrey / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Georgina V. Long, University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore Hospital · Richard Kefford, Macquarie University, Sydney, and Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales · Jonathan Cebon, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia · Zeynep Eroglu, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL · Jeffrey Infante, Tennessee Oncology · Douglas B. Johnson, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN · Sapna Patel, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Adil Daud, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco · Omid Hamid, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA · Rene Gonzalez, University of Colorado, Denver, CO · Lynn Schuchter, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA · William Sharfman, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD · Robert McWilliams, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN · Mario Sznol, Yale University, New Haven, CT · Suman Redhu, Eduard Gasal, and Bijoyesh Mookerjee, Novartis, East Hanover, NJ · Jeffrey Weber, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY · and Keith T. Flaherty, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, MA. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #28991513.

ABSTRACT: Purpose To report 5-year landmark analysis efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma (MM) who received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (D) and MEK inhibitor trametinib (T) combination therapy versus D monotherapy in the randomized phase II BRF113220 study part C. Patients and Methods BRAF inhibitor-naive patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive D 150 mg twice a day, D 150 mg twice a day plus T 1 mg once daily, or D 150 mg twice a day plus T 2 mg once daily (D + T 150/2). Patients who received D monotherapy could cross over to D + T 150/2 postprogression. Efficacy and safety were analyzed 4 and 5 years after initiation in patients with ≥ 5 years of follow-up. Results As of October 13, 2016, 18 patients who received D + T 150/2 remained in the study (13 [24%] of 54 enrolled at this dose plus five [11%] of 45 initially administered D who crossed over to D + T). With D + T 150/2, overall survival (OS; 4 years, 30%; 5 years, 28%) and progression-free survival (4 and 5 years, both 13%) appeared to stabilize with extended follow-up. Increased OS was observed in patients who received D + T with baseline normal lactate dehydrogenase (5 years, 45%) and normal lactate dehydrogenase with fewer than three organ sites with metastasis (5 years, 51%). With extended follow-up, one additional patient who received D + T 150/2 improved from a partial to a complete response. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion This 5-year analysis represents the longest follow-up to date with BRAF + MEK inhibitor combination therapy in BRAF V600-mutant MM. Consistent with trends observed in landmark analyses with shorter follow-up, this therapy elicits durable plateaus of long-term OS and progression-free survival that last ≥ 5 years in some patients with MM.

12 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib treatment for patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage IIIC or metastatic melanoma and activating exon 15 BRAF mutations other than V600E. 2017

Hallmeyer, Sigrun / Gonzalez, Rene / Lawson, David H / Cranmer, Lee D / Linette, Gerald P / Puzanov, Igor / Taback, Bret / Cowey, C Lance / Ribas, Antoni / Daniels, Gregory A / Moore, Timothy / Gibney, Geoffrey T / Tawbi, Hussein / Whitman, Eric / Lee, Geraldine / Mun, Yong / Liu, Shiyao / Hamid, Omid. ·aDepartment of Internal Medicine, Advocate Medical Group - Oncology North, Park Ridge, Illinois bMelanoma Research Clinic, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado cDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia dDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, The University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona eDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri fDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee gDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York hDepartment of Medical Oncology, Texas Oncology, Dallas, Texas iDepartment of Medicine, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of California jDepartment of Immuno-Oncology, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles kDepartment of Oncology, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla lGenentech Inc., South San Francisco, California mMid Ohio Oncology and Hematology Inc., Columbus, Ohio nDepartment of Melanoma, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC oDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania pDepartment of Melanoma, Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health System, Morristown, New Jersey, USA. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #29076950.

ABSTRACT: BRAF mutations are found in ~50% of metastatic melanomas, most commonly in codon V600. Vemurafenib improves progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. The results of a descriptive study evaluating vemurafenib in patients with advanced melanoma harbouring BRAF mutations other than V600E are reported. Eligible patients with stage IIIC or IV melanoma and non-V600E BRAF mutations received vemurafenib (960 mg, twice daily). End points included investigator-assessed best overall response rate (primary), time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. Planned (V600K vs. non-V600K mutations) subgroup analyses were carried out. Thirty-one patients were enrolled; 13 (42%) had V600K mutations and 18 (58%) had other mutations. Investigator-assessed confirmed that the best overall response rate was 23% (95% confidence interval=10-41%) in the overall population, and was similar between patients with V600K mutations (23%; 95% confidence interval=5-54%) versus other mutations (22%; 95% confidence interval=6-48%). Responses were observed in patients with V600K (n=3), V600E2 (n=1), V600R (n=1), L597S (n=1) and D594G (n=1) mutations. No new safety signals were reported. Vemurafenib showed activity in patients with advanced melanoma with rarer BRAF mutations.

13 Clinical Trial Final analysis of a randomised trial comparing pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma. 2017

Hamid, Omid / Puzanov, Igor / Dummer, Reinhard / Schachter, Jacob / Daud, Adil / Schadendorf, Dirk / Blank, Christian / Cranmer, Lee D / Robert, Caroline / Pavlick, Anna C / Gonzalez, Rene / Hodi, F Stephen / Ascierto, Paolo A / Salama, April K S / Margolin, Kim A / Gangadhar, Tara C / Wei, Ziwen / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Ribas, Antoni. ·The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: ohamid@theangelesclinic.org. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. · Ella Lemelbaum Institute of Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. · University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. · Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France. · New York University Cancer Institute, New York, NY, USA. · University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy. · Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA. · City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA. · Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28961465.

ABSTRACT: AIM: To evaluate the protocol-specified final analysis of overall survival (OS) in the KEYNOTE-002 study (NCT01704287) of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory, advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomised, phase II study, eligible patients had advanced melanoma with documented progression after two or more ipilimumab doses, previous BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, if BRAF RESULTS: A total of 180 patients were randomised to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg and 179 to chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 28 months (range 24.1-35.5), 368 patients died and 98 (55%) crossed over to pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.10, p = 0.117) and 10 mg/kg (0.74, 0.57-0.96, p = 0.011) resulted in a non-statistically significant improvement in OS versus chemotherapy; median OS was 13.4 (95% CI 11.0-16.4) and 14.7 (95% CI 11.3-19.5), respectively, versus 11.0 months (95% CI 8.9-13.8), with limited improvement after censoring for crossover. Two-year survival rates were 36% and 38%, versus 30%. Progression-free survival, objective response rate and duration of response improved with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy, regardless of dose. Grade III-V treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24 (13.5%), 30 (16.8%) and 45 (26.3%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Improvement in OS with pembrolizumab was not statistically significant at either dose versus chemotherapy.

14 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 .).

15 Clinical Trial Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. 2017

Wolchok, Jedd D / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Gonzalez, Rene / Rutkowski, Piotr / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Cowey, C Lance / Lao, Christopher D / Wagstaff, John / Schadendorf, Dirk / Ferrucci, Pier F / Smylie, Michael / Dummer, Reinhard / Hill, Andrew / Hogg, David / Haanen, John / Carlino, Matteo S / Bechter, Oliver / Maio, Michele / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / Guidoboni, Massimo / McArthur, Grant / Lebbé, Celeste / Ascierto, Paolo A / Long, Georgina V / Cebon, Jonathan / Sosman, Jeffrey / Postow, Michael A / Callahan, Margaret K / Walker, Dana / Rollin, Linda / Bhore, Rafia / Hodi, F Stephen / Larkin, James. ·From the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York (J.D.W., M.A.P., M.K.C.) · Oncology Institute of Veneto Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Padua (V.C.-S.), European Institute of Oncology, Milan (P.F.F.), Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena (M.M.), the Immunotherapy and Somatic Cell Therapy Unit, IRCCS Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Meldola (M.G.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) - all in Italy · University of Colorado, Denver (R.G.) · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.) · Aix-Marseille University, Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille (J.-J.G.), and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Dermatology and Centres d'Investigation Clinique, INSERM Unité 976, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université Paris Diderot, Paris (C.L.) - both in France · Texas Oncology-Baylor Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.) · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (C.D.L.) · the College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea (J.W.), and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London (J.L.) - both in the United Kingdom · the Department of Dermatology, University of Essen, Essen, and the German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg - both in Germany (D.S.) · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB (M.S.), and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto (D.H.) - both in Canada · Universitäts Spital, Zurich, Switzerland (R.D.) · Tasman Oncology Research, Southport Gold Coast, QLD (A.H.), Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney (M.S.C.), and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals (G.V.L.), Sydney, and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (G.M.) and the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, University of Melbourne (J.C.), Melbourne, VIC - all in Australia · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam (J.H.) · University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (O.B.) · General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid (I.M.-R.) · Northwestern University, Chicago (J.S.) · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (D.W., L.R., R.B.) · and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston (F.S.H.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #28889792.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).

16 Clinical Trial Health-related quality of life results from the phase III CheckMate 067 study. 2017

Schadendorf, Dirk / Larkin, James / Wolchok, Jedd / Hodi, F Stephen / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Gonzalez, Rene / Rutkowski, Piotr / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Cowey, C Lance / Lao, Christopher / Wagstaff, John / Callahan, Margaret K / Postow, Michael A / Smylie, Michael / Ferrucci, Pier Francesco / Dummer, Reinhard / Hill, Andrew / Taylor, Fiona / Sabater, Javier / Walker, Dana / Kotapati, Srividya / Abernethy, Amy / Long, Georgina V. ·Department of Dermatology, University of Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Istituto Oncologico Veneto, Veneto, Italy. · University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA. · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. · Hospital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · Texas Oncology-Baylor Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA. · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. · The College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. · Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy. · University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. · Tasman Oncology Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. · Adelphi Values, Boston, MA, USA. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28651159.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody of immune checkpoint programmed death 1 on T cells (PD-1), combined with ipilimumab, an immune checkpoint cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor, as combination therapy on the one hand and nivolumab as monotherapy on the other, have both demonstrated improved efficacy compared with ipilimumab alone in the CheckMate 067 study. However, the combination resulted in a higher frequency of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), which could result in diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here we report analyses of HRQoL for patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trial CheckMate 067. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQoL was assessed at weeks 1 and 5 per 6-week cycle for the first 6 months, once every 6 weeks thereafter, and at two follow-up visits using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Care Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EuroQoL Five Dimensions Questionnaire. In addition to the randomised population, patient subgroups, including BRAF mutation status, partial or complete response, treatment-related AEs of grade 3/4, and those who discontinued due to any reason and due to an AE, were investigated. RESULTS: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination and nivolumab alone both maintained HRQoL, and no clinically meaningful deterioration was observed over time compared with ipilimumab. In addition, similar results were observed across patient subgroups, and no clinically meaningful changes in HRQoL were observed during follow-up visits for patients who discontinued due to any cause. CONCLUSION: These results further support the clinical benefit of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. The finding that the difference in grade 3/4 AEs between the arms did not translate into clinically meaningful differences in the reported HRQoL may be relevant in the clinical setting. STUDY NUMBER: NCT01844505.

17 Clinical Trial Overall Survival and Durable Responses in Patients With BRAF V600-Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Receiving Dabrafenib Combined With Trametinib. 2016

Long, Georgina V / Weber, Jeffrey S / Infante, Jeffrey R / Kim, Kevin B / Daud, Adil / Gonzalez, Rene / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Hamid, Omid / Schuchter, Lynn / Cebon, Jonathan / Kefford, Richard F / Lawrence, Donald / Kudchadkar, Ragini / Burris, Howard A / Falchook, Gerald S / Algazi, Alain / Lewis, Karl / Puzanov, Igor / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Sun, Peng / Cunningham, Elizabeth / Kline, Amy S / Del Buono, Heather / McDowell, Diane Opatt / Patel, Kiran / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Georgina V. Long, Melanoma Institute Australia · The University of Sydney · Richard F. Kefford, Melanoma Institute Australia · The University of Sydney · Macquarie University, Sydney · Westmead Hospital, Westmead · Jonathan Cebon, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia · Jeffrey S. Weber and Ragini Kudchadkar, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL · Jeffrey R. Infante and Howard A. Burris III, Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology · Kevin B. Kim, California Pacific Medical Center · Adil Daud, Alain Algazi, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco · Omid Hamid, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA · Rene Gonzalez, Karl Lewis, University of Colorado · Gerald S. Falchook, Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO · Jeffrey A. Sosman, Igor Puzanov, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN · Lynn Schuchter, University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center · Nageatte Ibrahim, Elizabeth Cunningham, Merck · Peng Sun, Amy S. Kline, Heather Del Buono, Diane Opatt McDowell, GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, PA · Donald Lawrence and Kiran Patel, Incyte Corporation, Wilmington, DE · and Keith T. Flaherty, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #26811525.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To report the overall survival (OS) and clinical characteristics of BRAF inhibitor-naive long-term responders and survivors treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib in a phase I and II study of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. METHODS: BRAF inhibitor-naive patients treated with dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg daily (the 150/2 group) from the non-randomly assigned (part B) and randomly assigned (part C) cohorts of the study were analyzed for progression-free and OS separately. Baseline characteristics and factors on treatment were analyzed for associations with durable responses and OS. RESULTS: For BRAF inhibitor-naive patients in the 150/2 groups (n = 78), the progression-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 44%, 22%, and 18%, respectively, for part B (n = 24) and 41%, 25%, and 21%, respectively, for part C (n = 54). Median OS was 27.4 months in part B and 25 months in part C. OS at 1, 2, and 3 years was 72%, 60%, and 47%, respectively, for part B and 80%, 51%, and 38%, respectively, for part C. Prolonged survival was associated with metastases in fewer than three organ sites and lower baseline lactate dehydrogenase. OS at 3 years was 62% in patients with normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase and 63% in patients with a complete response. CONCLUSION: Dabrafenib plus trametinib results in a median OS of more than 2 years in BRAF inhibitor-naive patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma, and approximately 20% were progression free at 3 years. Durable responses occurred in patients with good prognostic features at baseline, which may be predictive.

18 Clinical Trial Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. 2015

Ribas, Antoni / Puzanov, Igor / Dummer, Reinhard / Schadendorf, Dirk / Hamid, Omid / Robert, Caroline / Hodi, F Stephen / Schachter, Jacob / Pavlick, Anna C / Lewis, Karl D / Cranmer, Lee D / Blank, Christian U / O'Day, Steven J / Ascierto, Paolo A / Salama, April K S / Margolin, Kim A / Loquai, Carmen / Eigentler, Thomas K / Gangadhar, Tara C / Carlino, Matteo S / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Moschos, Stergios J / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Goldinger, Simone M / Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie / Gonzalez, Rene / Kirkwood, John M / Wolchok, Jedd D / Eggermont, Alexander / Li, Xiaoyun Nicole / Zhou, Wei / Zernhelt, Adriane M / Lis, Joy / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Kang, S Peter / Daud, Adil. ·University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. · University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · New York University Cancer Institute, New York, NY, USA. · University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA. · University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Beverly Hills Cancer Center, Beverly Hills, CA, USA. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy. · Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance/University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. · University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. · Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. · Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, and Melanoma Institute Australia, Westmead, NSW, Australia. · St Luke's Cancer Center, Bethlehem, PA, USA; Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. · University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. · Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #26115796.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. METHODS: We carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both. Patients had to have resolution of all ipilimumab-related adverse events to grade 0-1 and prednisone 10 mg/day or less for at least 2 weeks, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion to be eligible. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (1:1:1) patients in a block size of six to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide). Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and BRAF(V600) mutation status. Individual treatment assignment between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was open label, but investigators and patients were masked to assignment of the dose of pembrolizumab. We present the primary endpoint at the prespecified second interim analysis of progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. The study is closed to enrolment but continues to follow up and treat patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2012, and Nov 13, 2013, we enrolled 540 patients: 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 179 to receive chemotherapy. Based on 410 progression-free survival events, progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·45-0·73; p<0·0001) and those assigned to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg (0·50, 0·39-0·64; p<0·0001) compared with those assigned to chemotherapy. 6-month progression-free survival was 34% (95% CI 27-41) in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 38% (31-45) in the 10 mg/kg group, and 16% (10-22) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 20 (11%) patients in the pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg group, 25 (14%) in the pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg group, and 45 (26%) in the chemotherapy group. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse event in the pembrolizumab groups was fatigue (two [1%] of 178 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and one [<1%] of 179 patients in the 10 mg/kg group, compared with eight [5%] of 171 in the chemotherapy group). Other treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events include generalised oedema and myalgia (each in two [1%] patients) in those given pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg; hypopituitarism, colitis, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, hyponatremia, and pneumonitis (each in two [1%]) in those given pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg; and anaemia (nine [5%]), fatigue (eight [5%]), neutropenia (six [4%]), and leucopenia (six [4%]) in those assigned to chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: These findings establish pembrolizumab as a new standard of care for the treatment of ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

19 Clinical Trial Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma. 2015

Larkin, James / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Gonzalez, Rene / Grob, Jean Jacques / Cowey, C Lance / Lao, Christopher D / Schadendorf, Dirk / Dummer, Reinhard / Smylie, Michael / Rutkowski, Piotr / Ferrucci, Pier F / Hill, Andrew / Wagstaff, John / Carlino, Matteo S / Haanen, John B / Maio, Michele / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / McArthur, Grant A / Ascierto, Paolo A / Long, Georgina V / Callahan, Margaret K / Postow, Michael A / Grossmann, Kenneth / Sznol, Mario / Dreno, Brigitte / Bastholt, Lars / Yang, Arvin / Rollin, Linda M / Horak, Christine / Hodi, F Stephen / Wolchok, Jedd D. ·From the Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London (J.L.), and South West Wales Cancer Institute, Singleton Hospital, Swansea (J.W.) - both in the United Kingdom · Melanoma Oncology Unit, Veneto Region Oncology Research Institute, Padua (V.C.-S.), Oncology of Melanoma Unit, European Institute of Oncology, Milan (P.F.F.), University Hospital of Siena, Siena (M.M.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) - all in Italy · Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado, Denver, Denver (R.G.) · Aix-Marseille University, Hôpital de La Timone, Assitance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille (J.J.G.), and Hôtel Dieu Place Alexis Ricordeau, Nantes (B.D.) - both in France · Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.) · Departments of Internal Medicine and Dermatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (C.D.L.) · Department of Dermatology, University of Essen, Essen, Germany (D.S.) · University of Zürich Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland (R.D.) · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada (M. Smylie) · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.) · Tasman Oncology Research, Southport Gold Coast, QLD (A.H.), and Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals (M.S.C.) and Melanoma Institute Australia (M.S.C., G.V.L.), University of Sydney, and the Mater Hospital (G.V.L.), Sydney, and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC (G.A.M.) - all in Australia · Division of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam (J.B.H.) · Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid (I.M.-R.) · Ludwig Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (M.K.C., M.A.P., J.D.W.) and Weill Cornell Medical College (M.K.C., M.A.P., J.D.W.) - both in New York · Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (K.G.) · Yale Cancer Center, Smilow Cancer Hospital of the Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale University Sc ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #26027431.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (a programmed death 1 [PD-1] checkpoint inhibitor) and ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] checkpoint inhibitor) have been shown to have complementary activity in metastatic melanoma. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab was compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, 945 previously untreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma to nivolumab alone, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or ipilimumab alone. Progression-free survival and overall survival were coprimary end points. Results regarding progression-free survival are presented here. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

20 Clinical Trial Phase II Study of Nilotinib in Melanoma Harboring KIT Alterations Following Progression to Prior KIT Inhibition. 2015

Carvajal, Richard D / Lawrence, Donald P / Weber, Jeffrey S / Gajewski, Thomas F / Gonzalez, Rene / Lutzky, Jose / O'Day, Steven J / Hamid, Omid / Wolchok, Jedd D / Chapman, Paul B / Sullivan, Ryan J / Teitcher, Jerrold B / Ramaiya, Nikhil / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Antonescu, Cristina R / Heinrich, Michael C / Bastian, Boris C / Corless, Christopher L / Fletcher, Jonathan A / Hodi, F Stephen. ·Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. · The University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado. · Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami Beach, Florida. · Beverly Hills Cancer Center, Beverly Hills, California. · Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. · Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. · The University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. · Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Stephen_hodi@dfci.harvard.edu. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #25695690.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Although durable responses can be achieved with tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib in melanomas harboring KIT mutations, the efficacy of alternative inhibitors after progression to imatinib and the activity of these agents on brain metastases are unknown. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a phase II study of nilotinib 400 mg twice a day in two cohorts of patients with melanomas harboring KIT mutations or amplification: (A) those refractory or intolerant to a prior KIT inhibitor; and (B) those with brain metastases. The primary endpoint was 4-month disease control rate. Secondary endpoints included response rate, time-to-progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). A Simon two-stage and a single-stage design was planned to assess for the primary endpoint in cohorts A and B, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled and 19 treated (11 in cohort A; 8 in cohort B). Three patients on cohort A [27%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 8%-56%] and 1 on cohort B (12.5%; 90% CI, 0.6%-47%) achieved the primary endpoint. Two partial responses were observed in cohort A (18.2%; 90% CI, 3%-47%); none were observed in cohort B. The median TTP and OS was 3.3 (90% CI, 2.1-3.9 months) and 9.1 months (90% CI, 4.3-14.2 months), respectively, in all treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nilotinib may achieve disease control in patients with melanoma harboring KIT alterations and whose disease progressed after imatinib therapy. The efficacy of this agent in KIT-altered melanoma with brain metastasis is limited.

21 Clinical Trial A phase 2, multicenter, open-label study of sepantronium bromide (YM155) plus docetaxel in patients with stage III (unresectable) or stage IV melanoma. 2015

Kudchadkar, Ragini / Ernst, Scott / Chmielowski, Bartosz / Redman, Bruce G / Steinberg, Joyce / Keating, Anne / Jie, Fei / Chen, Caroline / Gonzalez, Rene / Weber, Jeffrey. ·Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. · London Regional Cancer Centre, London, Ontario, Canada. · University of California-Los Angeles, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. · University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan. · Astellas Pharmaceuticals Global Development, Northbrook, Illinois. · University of Colorado Denver, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Denver, Colorado. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. ·Cancer Med · Pubmed #25533314.

ABSTRACT: Survivin is a microtubule-associated protein believed to be involved in preserving cell viability and regulating tumor cell mitosis, and it is overexpressed in many primary tumor types, including melanoma. YM155 is a first-in-class survivin suppressant. The purpose of this Phase 2 study was to evaluate the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate in patients with unresectable Stage III or IV melanoma receiving a combination of YM155 plus docetaxel. The study had two parts: Part 1 established the dose of docetaxel that was tolerable in combination with YM155, and Part 2 evaluated the tolerable docetaxel dose (75 mg/m(2) ) in combination with YM155 (5 mg/m(2) per day continuous infusion over 168 h every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was 6-month PFS rate. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), 1-year overall survival (OS) rate, time from first response to progression, clinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety. Sixty-four patients with metastatic melanoma were treated with docetaxel and YM155. Eight patients received an initial docetaxel dose of 100 mg/m(2) and 56 patients received 75 mg/m(2) of docetaxel. Six-month PFS rate per Independent Review Committee (IRC) was 34.8% (n = 64; 95% CI, 21.3-48.6%), and per Investigator was 31.3% (n = 64; 95% CI, 19.5-43.9%). The best ORR (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) per IRC was 12.5% (8/64). The stable disease (SD) rate was 51.6% (33/64), leading to a CBR (CR + PR + SD) of 64.1% (41/64). Estimated probability of 1-year survival was 56.3%. YM155 is a novel agent showing modest activity when combined with docetaxel for treating patients with melanoma. YM155 was generally well tolerated, but the predetermined primary efficacy endpoint (i.e., 6-month PFS rate ≥20%) was not achieved.

22 Clinical Trial Metabolic response by FDG-PET to imatinib correlates with exon 11 KIT mutation and predicts outcome in patients with mucosal melanoma. 2014

Zukotynski, Katherine / Yap, Jeffrey T / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Weber, Jeffrey / Gonzalez, Rene / Gajewski, Thomas F / O'Day, Steven / Kim, Kevin / Hodi, F Stephen / Van den Abbeele, Annick D. · ·Cancer Imaging · Pubmed #25609545.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic melanoma and KIT amplifications and/or mutations, therapy with imatinib mesylate may prolong survival. 18F-labeled 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT may be used to assess metabolic response. We investigated associations of metabolic response, mutational status, progression-free survival and overall survival in this population. METHODS: Baseline and 4-week follow-up 18F-FDG-PET/CT were evaluated in 17 patients with metastatic melanoma and KIT amplifications and/or mutations treated with imatinib in a multicenter phase II clinical trial. The maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) were measured in up to 10 lesions on each scan. Metabolic response was classified using modified EORTC criteria. Each patient had a diagnostic CT or MR at baseline, after 6 weeks of therapy and then at intervals of 2 months and anatomic response was classified using RECIST 1.0. Median follow-up was 9.8 months. RESULTS: Partial metabolic response (PMR), stable metabolic disease (SMD) and progressive metabolic disease (PMD) was seen in 5 (29%), 5 (29%), and 7 (41%) patients respectively. Five patients (29%) had a KIT mutation in exon 11, four of whom (80%) had PMR while 1 (20%) had SMD. Twelve patients (71%) did not have a KIT mutation in exon 11, and only 1 (8%) had PMR, 4 (33%) had SMD and 7 (58%) had PMD. There was agreement of metabolic and anatomic classification in 12 of 17 patients (71%). Four of 17 patients (24%) had PR on both metabolic and anatomic imaging and all had a KIT mutation in exon 11. Survival of patients with PMD was lower than with SMD or PMR. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic response by 18F-FDG-PET/CT is associated with mutational status in metastatic melanoma patients treated with imatinib. 18F-FDG-PET/CT may be a predictor of outcome, although a larger study is needed to verify this. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00424515.

23 Clinical Trial Combined BRAF (Dabrafenib) and MEK inhibition (Trametinib) in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma experiencing progression with single-agent BRAF inhibitor. 2014

Johnson, Douglas B / Flaherty, Keith T / Weber, Jeffrey S / Infante, Jeffrey R / Kim, Kevin B / Kefford, Richard F / Hamid, Omid / Schuchter, Lynn / Cebon, Jonathan / Sharfman, William H / McWilliams, Robert R / Sznol, Mario / Lawrence, Donald P / Gibney, Geoffrey T / Burris, Howard A / Falchook, Gerald S / Algazi, Alain / Lewis, Karl / Long, Georgina V / Patel, Kiran / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Sun, Peng / Little, Shonda / Cunningham, Elizabeth / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Daud, Adil / Gonzalez, Rene. ·Douglas B. Johnson and Jeffrey A. Sosman, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center · Jeffrey R. Infante and Howard A. Burris III, Sarah Cannon Research Institute and Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN · Keith T. Flaherty and Donald P. Lawrence, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston MA · Jeffrey S. Weber and Geoffrey T. Gibney, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL · Kevin B. Kim and Gerald S. Falchook, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Richard F. Kefford and Georgina V. Long, Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney and Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales · Jonathan Cebon, Joint Ludwig-Austin Oncology Unit, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia · Omid Hamid, Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles · Alain Algazi and Adil Daud, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA · Lynn Schuchter, University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center · Nageatte Ibrahim, Peng Sun, Shonda Little, and Elizabeth Cunningham, GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, PA · William H. Sharfman, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD · Robert R. McWilliams, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN · Mario Sznol, Yale University School of Medicine and Smilow Cancer Center, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT · Karl Lewis and Rene Gonzalez, University of Colorado, Denver, CO · and Kiran Patel, Incyte, Wilmington, DE. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #25287827.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Preclinical and early clinical studies have demonstrated that initial therapy with combined BRAF and MEK inhibition is more effective in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma than single-agent BRAF inhibitors. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib in patients who had received prior BRAF inhibitor treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label phase I/II study, we evaluated the pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib. Here, we report patients treated with combination therapy after disease progression with BRAF inhibitor treatment administered before study enrollment (part B; n = 26) or after cross-over at progression with dabrafenib monotherapy (part C; n = 45). RESULTS: In parts B and C, confirmed objective response rates (ORR) were 15% (95% CI, 4% to 35%) and 13% (95% CI, 5% to 27%), respectively; an additional 50% and 44% experienced stable disease ≥ 8 weeks, respectively. In part C, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2 to 4), and median overall survival was 11.8 months (95% CI, 8 to 25) from cross-over. Patients who previously received dabrafenib ≥ 6 months had superior outcomes with the combination compared with those treated < 6 months; median PFS was 3.9 (95% CI, 3 to 7) versus 1.8 months (95% CI, 2 to 4; hazard ratio, 0.49; P = .02), and ORR was 26% (95% CI, 10% to 48%) versus 0% (95% CI, 0% to 15%). CONCLUSION: Dabrafenib plus trametinib has modest clinical efficacy in patients with BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma. This regimen may be a therapeutic strategy for patients who previously benefited from BRAF inhibitor monotherapy ≥ 6 months but demonstrates minimal efficacy after rapid progression with BRAF inhibitor therapy.

24 Clinical Trial Combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma: a phase 1b study. 2014

Ribas, Antoni / Gonzalez, Rene / Pavlick, Anna / Hamid, Omid / Gajewski, Thomas F / Daud, Adil / Flaherty, Lawrence / Logan, Theodore / Chmielowski, Bartosz / Lewis, Karl / Kee, Damien / Boasberg, Peter / Yin, Ming / Chan, Iris / Musib, Luna / Choong, Nicholas / Puzanov, Igor / McArthur, Grant A. ·Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. · New York University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. · Hematology/Oncology Division, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. · Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA. · Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, USA. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: grant.mcarthur@petermac.org. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #25037139.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Addition of a MEK inhibitor to a BRAF inhibitor enhances tumour growth inhibition, delays acquired resistance, and abrogates paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway in preclinical models of BRAF-mutated melanoma. We assessed the safety and efficacy of combined BRAF inhibition with vemurafenib and MEK inhibition with cobimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. METHODS: We undertook a phase 1b study in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma. We included individuals who had either recently progressed on vemurafenib or never received a BRAF inhibitor. In the dose-escalation phase of our study, patients received vemurafenib 720 mg or 960 mg twice a day continuously and cobimetinib 60 mg, 80 mg, or 100 mg once a day for either 14 days on and 14 days off (14/14), 21 days on and 7 days off (21/7), or continuously (28/0). The primary endpoint was safety of the drug combination and to identify dose-limiting toxic effects and the maximum tolerated dose. Efficacy was a key secondary endpoint. All patients treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib were included in safety and efficacy analyses (intention-to-treat). The study completed accrual and all analyses are final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01271803. FINDINGS: 129 patients were treated at ten dosing regimens combining vemurafenib and cobimetinib: 66 had recently progressed on vemurafenib and 63 had never received a BRAF inhibitor. Dose-limiting toxic effects arose in four patients. One patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 80 mg once a day 14/14 had grade 3 fatigue for more than 7 days; one patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg once a day 21/7 had a grade 3 prolongation of QTc; and two patients on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg 28/0 had dose-limiting toxic effects-one developed grade 3 stomatitis and fatigue and one developed arthralgia and myalgia. The maximum tolerated dose was established as vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day in combination with cobimetinib 60 mg 21/7. Across all dosing regimens, the most common adverse events were diarrhoea (83 patients, 64%), non-acneiform rash (77 patients, 60%), liver enzyme abnormalities (64 patients, 50%), fatigue (62 patients, 48%), nausea (58 patients, 45%), and photosensitivity (52 patients, 40%). Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (12 patients, 9%; all grade 3), raised amounts of alkaline phosphatase (11 patients, 9%]), and anaemia (nine patients, 7%). Confirmed objective responses were recorded in ten (15%) of 66 patients who had recently progressed on vemurafenib, with a median progression-free survival of 2·8 months (95% CI 2·6-3·4). Confirmed objective responses were noted in 55 (87%) of 63 patients who had never received a BRAF inhibitor, including six (10%) who had a complete response; median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 10·1-17·5). INTERPRETATION: The combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable when administered at the respective maximum tolerated doses. The combination has promising antitumour activity and further clinical development is warranted in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma, particularly in those who have never received a BRAF inhibitor; confirmatory clinical testing is ongoing. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

25 Clinical Trial A single-arm, open-label, expanded access study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma in the United States. 2014

Flaherty, Lawrence / Hamid, Omid / Linette, Gerald / Schuchter, Lynn / Hallmeyer, Sigrun / Gonzalez, Rene / Cowey, C Lance / Pavlick, Anna / Kudrik, Fred / Curti, Brendan / Lawson, David / Chapman, Paul B / Margolin, Kim / Ribas, Antoni / McDermott, David / Flaherty, Keith / Cranmer, Lee / Hodi, F Stephen / Day, Bann-Mo / Linke, Rolf / Hainsworth, John. ·From the *Karmanos Cancer Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; †The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA; ‡Washington University, St Louis, MO; §University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; ∥Oncology Specialists S.C., Park Ridge, IL; ¶University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO; #Baylor Sammons Cancer Center, Texas Oncology, PA, Dallas, TX; **NYU Medical Center, New York, NY; ††South Carolina Oncology Associates, Columbia, SC; ‡‡Providence Portland Medical Center, Portland, OR; §§Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; ∥∥Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; ¶¶Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; ##UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA; ***Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and †††Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; ‡‡‡University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; §§§Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; ∥∥∥Genentech, San Francisco, CA; ¶¶¶The SFJ Pharma Group, Pleasanton, CA; and ###Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN. ·Cancer J · Pubmed #24445759.

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

Next