Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Nageatte Ibrahim
Based on 28 articles published since 2009
(Why 28 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, N. Ibrahim wrote the following 28 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Review Molecular pathogenesis of cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms. 2009

Ibrahim, Nageatte / Haluska, Frank G. ·Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA 02114, USA. nibrahim@partners.org ·Annu Rev Pathol · Pubmed #19400696.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer without an effective treatment. An understanding of the genetic basis of melanoma has recently shed light on some of the mechanisms of melanomagenesis. This review explores the major genes involved in familial and sporadic cutaneous melanoma with an emphasis on CDKN2A, CDK4, MC1R, and MAPK pathway targets (e.g., RAS and BRAF), apoptosis regulators (e.g., BCL-2, AKT, and APAF-1), and the tumor-suppressor genes TP53 and PTEN. New directions for therapeutics based on our current knowledge of the genes implicated in melanoma are also discussed.

2 Clinical Trial Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition with PD-1 blockade immunotherapy in BRAF-mutant melanoma. 2019

Ribas, Antoni / Lawrence, Donald / Atkinson, Victoria / Agarwal, Sachin / Miller, Wilson H / Carlino, Matteo S / Fisher, Rosalie / Long, Georgina V / Hodi, F Stephen / Tsoi, Jennifer / Grasso, Catherine S / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Zhao, Qing / Ghori, Razi / Moreno, Blanca Homet / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Hamid, Omid. ·University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. · Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, Greenslopes Private Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland, Australia. · Indiana University Health Goshen Center for Cancer Care, Goshen, IN, USA. · Segal Cancer Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. · Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Blacktown Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand. · Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Mater Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Novartis, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. ·Nat Med · Pubmed #31171879.

ABSTRACT: Oncogene-targeted therapy with B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF) and mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors induces a high initial response rate in patients with BRAF

3 Clinical Trial Dabrafenib, trametinib and pembrolizumab or placebo in BRAF-mutant melanoma. 2019

Ascierto, Paolo Antonio / Ferrucci, Pier Francesco / Fisher, Rosalie / Del Vecchio, Michele / Atkinson, Victoria / Schmidt, Henrik / Schachter, Jacob / Queirolo, Paola / Long, Georgina V / Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Svane, Inge Marie / Lotem, Michal / Bar-Sela, Gil / Couture, Felix / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Ghori, Razi / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Moreno, Blanca Homet / Ribas, Antoni. ·Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione "G. Pascale", Naples, Italy. paolo.ascierto@gmail.com. · European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. pier.ferrucci@ieo.it. · Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. · Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, Greenslopes Private Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. · Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. · Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center at Tel HaShomer, Cancer Center (Oncology Institute), Ramat Gan, Israel. · IRCCS San Martino-IST, Genova, Italy. · Melanoma Institute Australia and the University of Sydney, Mater and Royal North Shore Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. · Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Siena, Italy. · Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark. · Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Hebrew Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. · Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. · Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec Research Center, Laval University, Québec, Québec, Canada. · Novartis, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · University of California Los Angeles and the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. ·Nat Med · Pubmed #31171878.

ABSTRACT: Blocking programmed death 1 (PD-1) may enhance the durability of anti-tumor responses that are induced by the combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK

4 Clinical Trial Results from phase II trial of HSP90 inhibitor, STA-9090 (ganetespib), in metastatic uveal melanoma. 2018

Shah, Shalin / Luke, Jason J / Jacene, Heather A / Chen, Tianqi / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Buchbinder, Elizabeth L / McDermott, David F / Flaherty, Keith T / Sullivan, Ryan J / Lawrence, Donald P / Ott, Patrick A / Hodi, F Stephen. ·Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. · Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. · Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital. · Department of Biostatics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. · Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. · Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. · Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #30211813.

ABSTRACT: Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare form of melanoma without effective therapy. The biology of UM relies on several heat-shock protein 90 (Hsp90)-dependent molecules such as MET, MEK and AKT, making Hsp90 inhibition a rational approach. Patients with stage IV UM, measurable disease, and no previous chemotherapy were eligible. Patients received either ganetespib 200 mg weekly (cohort A) or 150 mg twice a week (cohort B). Primary endpoint response rate (RR) was assessed by RECIST. A total of 17 patients were accrued for this study, with seven in cohort A and 10 in cohort B. Liver metastases were present in 59%. Response outcomes included one partial response, four stable disease, 11 progressive disease, and one withdrawal for ORR: 5.9% and disease control rate of 29.4%. Progression-free survival was 1.6 months (cohort A) and 1.8 months (cohort B). Overall survival was 8.5 months (cohort A) and 4.9 months (cohort B). An overall 31% of adverse events were grade 3-4 and were mostly related to gastrointestinal toxicities. Early on-treatment (1 months) positron emission tomography showed reduction in metabolic activity in 24% of patients, suggesting a pharmacodynamic effect of Hsp90 inhibition. These early metabolic changes did not seem to be durable and/or clinically significant in relation to the 2-month response assessment. Hsp90 inhibition with ganetespib resulted in modest clinical benefit on two dosing schedules and was associated with significant, although manageable, gastrointestinal toxicity. Evidence of pharmacodynamic activity for Hsp90 inhibition was observed via positron emission tomography, which did not translate into clinical benefit, suggesting rapid development of resistance.

5 Clinical Trial Outcomes by line of therapy and programmed death ligand 1 expression in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab or ipilimumab in KEYNOTE-006: A randomised clinical trial. 2018

Carlino, Matteo S / Long, Georgina V / Schadendorf, Dirk / Robert, Caroline / Ribas, Antoni / Richtig, Erika / Nyakas, Marta / Caglevic, Christian / Tarhini, Ahmed / Blank, Christian / Hoeller, Christoph / Bar-Sela, Gil / Barrow, Catherine / Wolter, Pascal / Zhou, Honghong / Emancipator, Kenneth / Jensen, Erin H / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Daud, Adil. ·Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: Matteo.carlino@sydney.edu.au. · Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology and Translational Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: Dirk.Schadendorf@uk-essen.de. · Department of Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Paris-Sud University, Orsay, France. Electronic address: Caroline.Robert@igr.fr. · Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. · Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. Electronic address: erika.richtig@medunigraz.at. · Department of Clinical Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: marnya@ous-hf.no. · Unit of Investigational Cancer Drugs, Instituto Oncologico Fundación Arturo López Pérez, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: oncodemia@yahoo.com. · Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: tarhiniaa@upmc.edu. · Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: c.blank@nki.nl. · Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: christoph.hoeller@meduniwien.ac.at. · Division of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. Electronic address: g_barsela@rambam.health.gov.il. · Wellington Blood and Cancer Centre, Wellington Hospital, Wellington, New Zealand. Electronic address: Catherine.Barrow@ccdhb.org.nz. · Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: pascalwolter@hotmail.com. · Department of BARDS, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Electronic address: honghongz@gmail.com. · Companion Diagnostics, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Electronic address: kenneth.emancipator@merck.com. · LDS - Medical Communications, Merck & Co., Inc., North Wales, PA, USA. Electronic address: erin_jensen2@merck.com. · Department of Clinical Oncology, Merck & Co., Inc., North Wales, PA, USA. Electronic address: scot_ebbinghaus@merck.com. · Department of Clinical Oncology, Merck & Co., Inc., North Wales, PA, USA. Electronic address: nageatte.ibrahim@merck.com. · University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: adaud@medicine.ucsf.edu. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #30096704.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Predictive biomarkers of patients likely to benefit from anti-programmed death 1 inhibitor therapy have clinical relevance. We examined whether line of therapy or tumour programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression affects the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab, compared with ipilimumab, in advanced melanoma. METHODS: Of 834 patients enrolled in the randomised, open-label phase III KEYNOTE-006 study, 833 were included in this analysis. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 or 3 weeks (for 24 months) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (for four doses) until disease progression/intolerable toxicity. This analysis evaluated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Data cut-off: 03 November 2016. RESULTS: Of the patients, 60.3% were male, 65.9% were treatment naive and 80.6% had PD-L1-positive tumours (median follow-up was 33.9 months). Twenty-four-month survival rates were higher with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab in treatment-naive (PFS 31.0% versus 14.6%; OS 58.0% versus 44.7%) and previously treated patients (PFS 25.7% versus 11.3%; OS 49.2% versus 37.9%). Twenty-four-month survival rates were higher with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours (PFS 33.2% versus 13.1%; OS 58.4% versus 45.0%) and similar in PD-L1-negative tumours (PFS 14.9% versus NR [no data at 24 months for a PFS estimate]; OS 43.6% versus 31.8%). Safety of pembrolizumab by subgroup was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support pembrolizumab monotherapy as standard of care in patients with advanced melanoma, regardless of first- or second-line therapy or PD-L1 status. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01866319.

6 Clinical Trial Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus Placebo in Resected Stage III Melanoma. 2018

Eggermont, Alexander M M / Blank, Christian U / Mandala, Mario / Long, Georgina V / Atkinson, Victoria / Dalle, Stéphane / Haydon, Andrew / Lichinitser, Mikhail / Khattak, Adnan / Carlino, Matteo S / Sandhu, Shahneen / Larkin, James / Puig, Susana / Ascierto, Paolo A / Rutkowski, Piotr / Schadendorf, Dirk / Koornstra, Rutger / Hernandez-Aya, Leonel / Maio, Michele / van den Eertwegh, Alfonsus J M / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Gutzmer, Ralf / Jamal, Rahima / Lorigan, Paul / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Marreaud, Sandrine / van Akkooi, Alexander C J / Suciu, Stefan / Robert, Caroline. ·From the Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris and University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif (A.M.M.E., C.R.), Hospices Civils de Lyon Cancer Institute, Cancer Research Center of Lyon, Lyon University, Lyon (S.D.), and Aix-Marseille University, Hôpital de la Timone, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille (J.-J.G.) - all in France · Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (C.U.B., A.C.J.A.) and VU University Medical Center (A.J.M.E.), Amsterdam, and Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen (R.K.) - all in the Netherlands · Azienda Ospedaliera Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo (M. Mandala), Istituto Nazionale Tumori Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.), and Universita Degli Studi Di Siena-Policlinico le Scotte, Siena (M. Maio) - all in Italy · Melanoma Institute Australia, the University of Sydney, and Mater and Royal North Shore Hospitals (G.V.L.) and Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, Melanoma Institute Australia and the University of Sydney (M.S.C.), Sydney, Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane (V.A.), Alfred Hospital (A.H.) and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (S. Sandhu), Melbourne, VIC, and Fiona Stanley Hospital-University of Western Australia-Edith Cowan University Perth, Perth (A.K.) - all in Australia · Cancer Research Center, Moscow (M.L.) · Royal Marsden Hospital, London (J.L.) · Hospital Clinic Universitari de Barcelona, Barcelona (S.P.) · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.) · University Hospital Essen, Essen and German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg (D.S.), and the Skin Cancer Center, Department of Dermatology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover (R.G.) - all in Germany · Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (L.H.-A.) · Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Centre de Recherche du CHUM, Montreal (R.J.) · Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom (P.L.) · Merck, Kenilworth, NJ (N.I.) · and the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels (S.M., S. Suciu). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #29658430.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab has been found to prolong progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 double-blind trial to evaluate pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. METHODS: Patients with completely resected stage III melanoma were randomly assigned (with stratification according to cancer stage and geographic region) to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab (514 patients) or placebo (505 patients) intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses (approximately 1 year) or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. Recurrence-free survival in the overall intention-to-treat population and in the subgroup of patients with cancer that was positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) were the primary end points. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 15 months, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo in the overall intention-to-treat population (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 75.4% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 71.3 to 78.9] vs. 61.0% [95% CI, 56.5 to 65.1]; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.57; 98.4% CI, 0.43 to 0.74; P<0.001) and in the subgroup of 853 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 77.1% [95% CI, 72.7 to 80.9] in the pembrolizumab group and 62.6% [95% CI, 57.7 to 67.0] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P<0.001). Adverse events of grades 3 to 5 that were related to the trial regimen were reported in 14.7% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 3.4% of patients in the placebo group. There was one treatment-related death due to myositis in the pembrolizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: As adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, 200 mg of pembrolizumab administered every 3 weeks for up to 1 year resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo, with no new toxic effects identified. (Funded by Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02362594 ; EudraCT number, 2014-004944-37 .).

7 Clinical Trial Patient-reported outcomes in KEYNOTE-006, a randomised study of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. 2017

Petrella, Teresa M / Robert, Caroline / Richtig, Erika / Miller, Wilson H / Masucci, Giuseppe V / Walpole, Euan / Lebbe, Celeste / Steven, Neil / Middleton, Mark R / Hille, Darcy / Zhou, Wei / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Cebon, Jonathan. ·Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Ave, T2-041, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. Electronic address: teresa.petrella@sunnybrook.ca. · Gustave Roussy and Université Paris-Sud, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. Electronic address: caroline.robert@gustaveroussy.fr. · Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerpl. 2, 8036 Graz, Graz, Austria. Electronic address: erika.richtig@medunigraz.at. · Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, Rossy Cancer Network, and McGill University, 3755 Ch de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada. Electronic address: wilsonmiller@gmail.com. · Karolinska Institute, Solnavägen 1, 171 77 Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: giuseppe.masucci@ki.se. · Princess Alexandra Hospital and The University of Queensland, 199 Ipswich Rd, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD 4102, Australia. Electronic address: euan.walpole@health.qld.gov.au. · APHP, Dermatology and CIC, Université Paris Diderot, Hôpital Saint-Louis, 1 Avenue Claude Vellefaux, 75010 Paris, France. Electronic address: celeste.lebbe@aphp.fr. · Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK. Electronic address: N.M.Steven@bham.ac.uk. · The Churchill Hospital and The University of Oxford, Old Rd, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LE, UK. Electronic address: mark.middleton@oncology.ox.ac.uk. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: darcy_hille@merck.com. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: wei.zhou2@merck.com. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: nageatte.ibrahim@merck.com. · Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Health, School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg VIC 3084, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: jonathan.cebon@onjcri.org.au. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28987768.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Report results of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms from phase III KEYNOTE-006 study of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naive advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 (Q2W) or every 3 weeks (Q3W) for up to 2 years, or four cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was administered at baseline and throughout the study. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) analyses were pre-specified exploratory endpoints; the primary PRO assessment was the score change from baseline to week 12 in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/HRQoL score between the arms using constrained longitudinal data analysis. RESULTS: The PRO analysis population included 776 patients: pembrolizumab Q2W (n = 270); pembrolizumab Q3W (n = 266); ipilimumab (n = 240). Baseline GHS was similar across arms. QLQ-C30 compliance rates at week 12 were 87% (n = 214), 97% (n = 226), and 96% (n = 178), for the pembrolizumab Q2W, pembrolizumab Q3W, and ipilimumab arms, respectively. From baseline to week 12, GHS/HRQoL scores were better maintained with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab (decrease of -1.9 and -2.5 for pembrolizumab versus -10.0 for ipilimumab; p < 0.001 for each pembrolizumab arm versus ipilimumab). Fewer patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced deterioration in GHS at week 12 (31% for pembrolizumab Q2W; 29% for Q3W and 44% for ipilimumab), with similar trends observed for individual functioning and symptoms scales. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was better maintained with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naive advanced melanoma. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01866319.

8 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.

9 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.

10 Clinical Trial Standard-dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced-dose ipilimumab for patients with advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-029): an open-label, phase 1b trial. 2017

Long, Georgina V / Atkinson, Victoria / Cebon, Jonathan S / Jameson, Michael B / Fitzharris, Bernie M / McNeil, Catriona M / Hill, Andrew G / Ribas, Antoni / Atkins, Michael B / Thompson, John A / Hwu, Wen-Jen / Hodi, F Stephen / Menzies, Alexander M / Guminski, Alexander D / Kefford, Richard / Kong, Benjamin Y / Tamjid, Babak / Srivastava, Archana / Lomax, Anna J / Islam, Mohammed / Shu, Xinxin / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Carlino, Matteo S. ·Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. · Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, Greenslopes Private Hospital, Greenslopes, QLD, Australia; University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. · Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Health, School of Cancer Medicine, LaTrobe University, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. · Regional Cancer Centre, Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand. · Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand. · Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. · Tasman Oncology Research, Southport Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. · Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA. · Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. · University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Westmead Hospital, Melanoma Institute Australia, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, NSW, Australia. · Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28729151.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Reduced-dose nivolumab in combination with standard-dose ipilimumab improves objective response and progression-free survival compared with standard-dose ipilimumab alone, but increases toxicity. We assessed the safety and anti-tumour activity of standard-dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced-dose ipilimumab. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 1b trial, we recruited patients from 12 medical centres in Australia, New Zealand, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had advanced melanoma, had an Eastern Coooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, had adequate organ function, had resolution of toxic effects of the most recent previous chemotherapy to grade 1 or less, had no active autoimmune disease requiring systemic steroids or immunosuppressive agents, had no active non-infectious pneumonitis, had no uncontrolled thyroid dysfunction or diabetes, had no active brain metastases, and had not received previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus intravenous ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. The proportion of patients achieving an objective response assessed per RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review and overall survival were secondary endpoints. We also assessed progression-free survival. The primary endpoint was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of combination therapy. Activity was assessed in all enrolled patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02089685. Enrolment into this cohort is closed, but patients are still being monitored for safety and anti-tumour activity. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2015, and Sept 17, 2015, we enrolled and treated 153 patients. As of the Oct 17, 2016, cutoff date, median follow-up was 17·0 months (IQR 14·8-18·8). 110 (72%) of 153 patients received all four pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab doses; 64 (42%) remained on pembrolizumab monotherapy. 110 grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 69 (45%) patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of pembrolizumab and ipilimumab in 22 (14%) patients, including 17 (11%) who discontinued both treatments for the same event and five (3%) who discontinued ipilimumab for one event and later discontinued pembrolizumab for another. 12 (8%) patients discontinued ipilimumab only and 14 (9%) discontinued pembrolizumab only because of treatment-related adverse events. 158 immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (60%) patients, and 50 immune-mediated adverse events of grade 3-4 occurred in 42 (27%) patients; the most common immune-mediated adverse events were hypothyroidism (25 [16%]) and hyperthyroidism (17 [11%]). 93 (61% [95% CI 53-69]) patients achieved an objective response. Estimated 1 year progression-free survival was 69% (95% CI 60-75), and estimated 1 year overall survival was 89% (95% CI 83-93). INTERPRETATION: Standard-dose pembrolizumab given in combination with four doses of reduced-dose ipilimumab followed by standard-dose pembrolizumab has a manageable toxicity profile and provides robust anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced melanoma. These data suggest that standard-dose pembrolizumab plus reduced-dose ipilimumab might be a tolerable, efficacious treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma. A randomised phase 2 trial of alternative dosing strategies of this combination is underway. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

11 Clinical Trial An Open-Label, Dose-Escalation Phase I Study of Anti-TYRP1 Monoclonal Antibody IMC-20D7S for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Melanoma. 2016

Khalil, Danny N / Postow, Michael A / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Ludwig, Dale L / Cosaert, Jan / Kambhampati, Siva Rama Prasad / Tang, Shande / Grebennik, Dmitri / Kauh, John Sae Wook / Lenz, Heinz-Josef / Flaherty, Keith T / Hodi, F Stephen / Lawrence, Donald P / Wolchok, Jedd D. ·Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Ludwig Center for Cancer Immunotherapy, New York, New York. · Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, Pennsylvania. · Eli Lilly and Company, New York, New York. · Sotio, Prague, Czech Republic. · Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey. · Division of Medical Oncology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Ludwig Center for Cancer Immunotherapy, New York, New York. wolchokj@mskcc.org. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #27797971.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Tyrosinase-related protein-1 (TYRP1) is a transmembrane glycoprotein that is specifically expressed in melanocytes and melanoma cells. Preclinical data suggest that mAbs targeting TYRP1 confer antimelanoma activity. IMC-20D7S is a recombinant human IgG1 mAb targeting TYRP1. Here, we report the first-in-human phase I/Ib trial of IMC-20D7S. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The primary objective of this study was to establish the safety profile and the MTD of IMC-20D7S. Patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after or during at least one line of treatment or for whom standard therapy was not indicated enrolled in this standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation, open-label study. IMC-20D7S was administered intravenously every 2 or 3 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled. The most common adverse events were fatigue and constipation experienced by nine (33%) and eight (30%) patients, respectively. There were no serious adverse events related to treatment, no discontinuations of treatment due to adverse events, and no treatment-related deaths. Given the absence of dose-limiting toxicities, an MTD was not defined, but a provisional MTD was established at the 20 mg/kg every 2-week dose based on serum concentration and safety data. One patient experienced a complete response. A disease control rate, defined as stable disease or better, of 41% was observed. CONCLUSION: IMC-20D7S is well tolerated among patients with advanced melanoma with evidence of antitumor activity. Further investigation of this agent as monotherapy in selected patients or as part of combination regimens is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 22(21); 5204-10. ©2016 AACR.

12 Clinical Trial A phase I trial of panobinostat (LBH589) in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2016

Ibrahim, Nageatte / Buchbinder, Elizabeth I / Granter, Scott R / Rodig, Scott J / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Becerra, Carla / Tsiaras, Argyro / Gjini, Evisa / Fisher, David E / Hodi, F Stephen. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Currently at Merck & Co.,, Kenilworth, New Jersey. · Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Biostatistics & Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. ·Cancer Med · Pubmed #27748045.

ABSTRACT: Epigenetic alterations by histone/protein deacetylases (HDACs) are one of the many mechanisms that cancer cells use to alter gene expression and promote growth. HDAC inhibitors have proven to be effective in the treatment of specific malignancies, particularly in combination with other anticancer agents. We conducted a phase I trial of panobinostat in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Patients were treated with oral panobinostat at a dose of 30 mg daily on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (Arm A). Three of the six patients on this dose experienced clinically significant thrombocytopenia requiring dose interruption. Due to this, a second treatment arm was opened and the dose was changed to 30 mg oral panobinostat three times a week every other week (Arm B). Six patients were treated on Arm A and 10 patients were enrolled to Arm B with nine patients treated. In nine patients treated on Arm B, the response rate was 0% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 0-28%) and the disease-control rate was 22% (90% CI: 4-55%). Among all 15 patients treated, the overall response rate was 0% (90% CI: 0-17%) and the disease-control rate was 27% (90% CI: 10-51%). There was a high rate of toxicity associated with treatment. Correlative studies suggest the presence of immune modifications after HDAC inhibition. Panobinostat is not active as a single agent in the treatment of melanoma. Further exploration of this agent in combination with other therapies may be warranted.

13 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.

14 Clinical Trial A Phase I Trial of Bortezomib and Sorafenib in Advanced Malignant Melanoma. 2015

Sullivan, Ryan J / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Lawrence, Donald P / Aldridge, Julie / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Hodi, F Stephen / Flaherty, Keith T / Conley, Christine / Mier, James W / Atkins, Michael B / McDermott, David F. ·Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; rsullivan7@partners.org. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; · Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; · Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., USA. ·Oncologist · Pubmed #25986244.

ABSTRACT: LESSONS LEARNED: This study is a rare example of effective doses of both targeted agents being both administered and tolerated.This combination should not be used in melanoma. BACKGROUND: Sorafenib and bortezomib affect BCL family member expression. We previously demonstrated that bortezomib augmented sorafenib-mediated cytotoxicity in melanoma cell lines in vitro. We aimed to combine sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. with increasing doses of weekly bortezomib. METHODS: Patients with metastatic melanoma were enrolled in dose-escalation cohorts to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sorafenib (twice daily) in combination with bortezomib (weekly for 3 of 4 weeks). The MTD was defined as the highest dose level at which less than 33% of patients exhibited a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Efficacy, as measured by 6-month progression-free survival and response rate per RECIST, was documented. RESULTS: Eleven patients were enrolled at three dose levels. DLTs (fatigue and rash) were seen in two of three patients at the highest dose level. Five patients were enrolled for sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. and bortezomib 1.0 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 of every 4 weeks; none had DLTs, and this dose level was defined as the MTD. Of 10 evaluable patients, no responses were seen. Two of 11 patients (18%) remained progression free for longer than 6 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of sorafenib and bortezomib is safe but not active in patients with melanoma.

15 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.).

16 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.

17 Clinical Trial Bevacizumab plus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2014

Hodi, F Stephen / Lawrence, Donald / Lezcano, Cecilia / Wu, Xinqi / Zhou, Jun / Sasada, Tetsuro / Zeng, Wanyong / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Atkins, Michael B / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Friedlander, Philip / Flaherty, Keith T / Murphy, George F / Rodig, Scott / Velazquez, Elsa F / Mihm, Martin C / Russell, Sara / DiPiro, Pamela J / Yap, Jeffrey T / Ramaiya, Nikhil / Van den Abbeele, Annick D / Gargano, Maria / McDermott, David. ·Authors' Affiliations: Departments of Medical Oncology, Stephen_Hodi@dfci.harvard.edu. · Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Departments of. · University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; · Authors' Affiliations: Departments of Medical Oncology. · Biostatistics, and. · Lombardi Cancer Center Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia; and. · Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York. · Pathology and. · Tufts University; Miraca Life Sciences, Newton, Massachusetts; · Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital; · Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; · Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston; ·Cancer Immunol Res · Pubmed #24838938.

ABSTRACT: Ipilimumab improves survival in advanced melanoma and can induce immune-mediated tumor vasculopathy. Besides promoting angiogenesis, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) suppresses dendritic cell maturation and modulates lymphocyte endothelial trafficking. This study investigated the combination of CTLA4 blockade with ipilimumab and VEGF inhibition with bevacizumab. Patients with metastatic melanoma were treated in four dosing cohorts of ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) with four doses at 3-week intervals and then every 12 weeks, and bevacizumab (7.5 or 15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks. Forty-six patients were treated. Inflammatory events included giant cell arteritis (n = 1), hepatitis (n = 2), and uveitis (n = 2). On-treatment tumor biopsies revealed activated vessel endothelium with extensive CD8(+) and macrophage cell infiltration. Peripheral blood analyses demonstrated increases in CCR7(+/-)/CD45RO(+) cells and anti-galectin antibodies. Best overall response included 8 partial responses, 22 instances of stable disease, and a disease-control rate of 67.4%. Median survival was 25.1 months. Bevacizumab influences changes in tumor vasculature and immune responses with ipilimumab administration. The combination of bevacizumab and ipilimumab can be safely administered and reveals VEGF-A blockade influences on inflammation, lymphocyte trafficking, and immune regulation. These findings provide a basis for further investigating the dual roles of angiogenic factors in blood vessel formation and immune regulation, as well as future combinations of antiangiogenesis agents and immune checkpoint blockade.

18 Clinical Trial Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. 2012

Flaherty, Keith T / Infante, Jeffery R / Daud, Adil / Gonzalez, Rene / Kefford, Richard F / Sosman, Jeffrey / Hamid, Omid / Schuchter, Lynn / Cebon, Jonathan / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Kudchadkar, Ragini / Burris, Howard A / Falchook, Gerald / Algazi, Alain / Lewis, Karl / Long, Georgina V / Puzanov, Igor / Lebowitz, Peter / Singh, Ajay / Little, Shonda / Sun, Peng / Allred, Alicia / Ouellet, Daniele / Kim, Kevin B / Patel, Kiran / Weber, Jeffrey. ·Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, USA. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #23020132.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Resistance to therapy with BRAF kinase inhibitors is associated with reactivation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. To address this problem, we conducted a phase 1 and 2 trial of combined treatment with dabrafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, and trametinib, a selective MAPK kinase (MEK) inhibitor. METHODS: In this open-label study involving 247 patients with metastatic melanoma and BRAF V600 mutations, we evaluated the pharmacokinetic activity and safety of oral dabrafenib (75 or 150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (1, 1.5, or 2 mg daily) in 85 patients and then randomly assigned 162 patients to receive combination therapy with dabrafenib (150 mg) plus trametinib (1 or 2 mg) or dabrafenib monotherapy. The primary end points were the incidence of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, survival free of melanoma progression, and response. Secondary end points were overall survival and pharmacokinetic activity. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxic effects were infrequently observed in patients receiving combination therapy with 150 mg of dabrafenib and 2 mg of trametinib (combination 150/2). Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was seen in 7% of patients receiving combination 150/2 and in 19% receiving monotherapy (P=0.09), whereas pyrexia was more common in the combination 150/2 group than in the monotherapy group (71% vs. 26%). Median progression-free survival in the combination 150/2 group was 9.4 months, as compared with 5.8 months in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.62; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response with combination 150/2 therapy was 76%, as compared with 54% with monotherapy (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib and trametinib were safely combined at full monotherapy doses. The rate of pyrexia was increased with combination therapy, whereas the rate of proliferative skin lesions was nonsignificantly reduced. Progression-free survival was significantly improved. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01072175.).

19 Article Diagnostic Comparison of CT Scans and Colonoscopy for Immune-Related Colitis in Ipilimumab-Treated Advanced Melanoma Patients. 2017

Garcia-Neuer, Marlene / Marmarelis, Melina E / Jangi, Sushrut R / Luke, Jason J / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Davis, Meredith / Weinberg, Janice / Donahue, Hilary / Bailey, Nancy / Hodi, F Stephen / Buchbinder, Elizabeth L / Ott, Patrick A. ·Department of Medical Oncology Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Medical Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. · Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · Current affiliation: Merck; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Department of Biostatistics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Medical Oncology Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. patrick_ott@dfci.harvard.edu. ·Cancer Immunol Res · Pubmed #28373217.

ABSTRACT: Colitis can be a life-threatening toxicity for patients treated with immune checkpoint blockade antibodies. With the anticipated widespread use of these reagents, the timely and accurate diagnosis of immune-related colitis becomes increasingly important. To better understand the clinical presentation of colitis from ipilimumab and to assess the use of CT scans of the abdomen/pelvis as a diagnostic tool, we retrospectively analyzed patients with advanced melanoma who received ipilimumab at our institution. Ninety nine (33%) of 303 patients developed diarrhea during therapy, and 46 patients (15%) received corticosteroids for colitis. Of the patients with diarrhea, 48 (48%) underwent colonoscopy and 46 (46%) underwent both CT and colonoscopy. In the 34 patients (34%) with a CT and biopsy, CT was highly predictive of colitis on biopsy (positive predictive value 96%), and the absence of CT findings was predictive of a negative biopsy (negative likelihood ratio 0.2). In patients who had symptoms and CT evaluation, CT was highly predictive of the need for steroids to reach resolution of symptoms (positive predictive value 92%, positive likelihood ratio 7.3). We conclude that CT is a fast, reliable, and noninvasive mode of diagnosing colitis, whereas colonoscopy and biopsy may not be needed to establish that diagnosis.

20 Article Vitamin D deficiency is associated with a worse prognosis in metastatic melanoma. 2017

Timerman, Dmitriy / McEnery-Stonelake, Melissa / Joyce, Cara J / Nambudiri, Vinod E / Hodi, F Stephen / Claus, Elizabeth B / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Lin, Jennifer Y. ·Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology (HST), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. · Department of Biostatistics, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA. · Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. · Melanoma Program, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. · Merck Research Laboratories, Clinical Oncology, North Wales, PA, USA. ·Oncotarget · Pubmed #28036288.

ABSTRACT: Vitamin D deficiency (≤20 ng/mL) is associated with an increased incidence and worse prognosis of various types of cancer including melanoma. A retrospective, single-center study of individuals diagnosed with melanoma from January 2007 through June 2013 who had a vitamin D (25(OH)D3) level measured within one year of diagnosis was performed to determine whether vitamin D deficiency and repletion are associated with melanoma outcome. A total of 409 individuals diagnosed with histopathology-confirmed melanoma who had an ever measured serum 25(OH)D3 level were identified. 252 individuals with a 25(OH)D3 level recorded within one year after diagnosis were included in the study and the individual and melanoma characteristics such as age, sex, Breslow thickness, ulceration, stage, mitotic rate, and LDH were obtained from the medical record. A worse melanoma prognosis was associated with vitamin D deficiency (P=0.012), higher stage (P<0.001), ulceration (P=0.001), and higher mitotic rate (P=0.001) (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.15-3.22). In patients with stage IV metastatic melanoma, vitamin D deficiency was associated with significantly worse melanoma-specific mortality (adjusted HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.10-3.87). Patients with metastatic melanoma who were initially vitamin D deficient and subsequently had a decrease or ≤20 ng/mL increase in their 25(OH)D3 concentration had significantly worse outcomes (HR 4.68, 95% CI 1.05-20.88) compared to non-deficient patients who had a >20 ng/mL increase. Our results suggest that initial vitamin D deficiency and insufficient repletion is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with metastatic melanoma.

21 Article Bidirectional cross talk between patient-derived melanoma and cancer-associated fibroblasts promotes invasion and proliferation. 2016

Izar, Benjamin / Joyce, Cailin E / Goff, Stephanie / Cho, Nancy L / Shah, Parin M / Sharma, Gaurav / Li, Jingjing / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Gold, Jason / Hodi, F Stephen / Garraway, Levi A / Novina, Carl D / Bertagnolli, Monica M / Yoon, Charles H. ·Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. · The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Cancer Immunology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Surgery, VA Boston Health Care Service, Surgical Service, West Roxbury, MA, USA. ·Pigment Cell Melanoma Res · Pubmed #27482935.

ABSTRACT: Tumor-stroma interactions are critical for epithelial-derived tumors, and among the stromal cell types, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) exhibit multiple functions that fuel growth, dissemination, and drug resistance. However, these interactions remain insufficiently characterized in non-epithelial tumors such as malignant melanoma. We generated monocultures of melanoma cells and matching CAFs from patients' metastatic lesions, distinguished by oncogenic drivers and immunoblotting of characteristic markers. RNA sequencing of CAFs revealed a homogenous epigenetic program that strongly resembled the signatures from epithelial cancers, including enrichment for an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Melanoma CAFs in monoculture displayed robust invasive behavior while patient-derived melanoma monocultures showed very little invasiveness. Instead, melanoma cells showed increased invasion when co-cultured with CAFs. In turn, CAFs showed increased proliferation when exposed to melanoma conditioned media (CM), mediated in part by melanoma-secreted transforming growth factor-alpha that acted on CAFs via the epidermal growth factor receptor. This study provides evidence that bidirectional interactions between melanoma and CAFs regulate progression of metastatic melanoma.

22 Article The role of whole brain radiation therapy in the management of melanoma brain metastases. 2014

Dyer, Michael A / Arvold, Nils D / Chen, Yu-Hui / Pinnell, Nancy E / Mitin, Timur / Lee, Eudocia Q / Hodi, F Stephen / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Weiss, Stephanie E / Kelly, Paul J / Floyd, Scott R / Mahadevan, Anand / Alexander, Brian M. ·Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. bmalexander@lroc.harvard.edu. ·Radiat Oncol · Pubmed #24954062.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are common in patients with melanoma, and optimal management is not well defined. As melanoma has traditionally been thought of as "radioresistant," the role of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in particular is unclear. We conducted this retrospective study to identify prognostic factors for patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for melanoma brain metastases and to investigate the role of additional up-front treatment with whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). METHODS: We reviewed records of 147 patients who received SRS as part of initial management of their melanoma brain metastases from January 2000 through June 2010. Overall survival (OS) and time to distant intracranial progression were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: WBRT was employed with SRS in 27% of patients and as salvage in an additional 22%. Age at SRS > 60 years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, p = 0.05), multiple brain metastases (HR 1.90, p = 0.008), and omission of up-front WBRT (HR 2.24, p = 0.005) were associated with distant intracranial progression on multivariate analysis. Extensive extracranial metastases (HR 1.86, p = 0.0006), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) ≤ 80% (HR 1.58, p = 0.01), and multiple brain metastases (HR 1.40, p = 0.06) were associated with worse OS on univariate analysis. Extensive extracranial metastases (HR 1.78, p = 0.001) and KPS (HR 1.52, p = 0.02) remained significantly associated with OS on multivariate analysis. In patients with absent or stable extracranial disease, multiple brain metastases were associated with worse OS (multivariate HR 5.89, p = 0.004), and there was a trend toward an association with worse OS when up-front WBRT was omitted (multivariate HR 2.56, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple brain metastases and omission of up-front WBRT (particularly in combination) are associated with distant intracranial progression. Improvement in intracranial disease control may be especially important in the subset of patients with absent or stable extracranial disease, where the competing risk of death from extracranial disease is low. These results are hypothesis generating and require confirmation from ongoing randomized trials.

23 Article Outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immunotherapy prior to or after BRAF inhibitors. 2014

Ackerman, Allison / Klein, Oliver / McDermott, David F / Wang, Wei / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Lawrence, Donald P / Gunturi, Anasuya / Flaherty, Keith T / Hodi, F Stephen / Kefford, Richard / Menzies, Alexander M / Atkins, Michael B / Long, Georgina V / Sullivan, Ryan J. ·Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. ·Cancer · Pubmed #24577748.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The immunotherapy (IT) agents ipilimumab and interleukin-2 as well as BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) vemurafenib and dabrafenib, with or without trametinib (MEK inhibitors), are all FDA-approved treatments for BRAF metastatic melanoma, but there are few studies to guide optimal sequencing. This retrospective analysis describes the outcomes of patients treated with either BRAFi before IT or IT before BRAFi. METHODS: A cohort of patients treated with BRAFi alone or with MEK inhibitor was retrospectively identified. Response rate (RR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated for the entire cohort, subdivided by BRAFi prior to or after IT. RESULTS: RR and median PFS and OS calculated from commencement of BRAFi following IT (N = 32) were 57%, 6.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.3-9.1 months), and 19.6 months (95% CI = 10.0-undefined months), respectively; whereas for BRAFi initially (N = 242) were 66%, 5.6 months (95% CI = 4.7-6.8 months), and 13.4 months (95% CI = 10.1-17.0 months). Results were similar when controlled for prognostic variables. A total of 193 patients discontinued BRAFi, with OS of 2.9 months (range of 1.8-4.4 months) from day of BRAFi discontinuation. Forty patients subsequently received IT with ipilimumab. Only half could complete 4 doses of ipilimumab; PFS with ipilimumab was 2.7 months (95% CI = 1.8-3.1 months) and OS was 5.0 months (95% CI = 3.0-8.8 months). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, prior treatment with IT does not appear to negatively influence response to BRAFi. Outcomes for IT with ipilimumab following BRAFi discontinuation are poor. Randomized controlled trials are needed to define if sequencing IT prior to BRAFi therapy is superior to sequencing BRAFi prior to IT.

24 Article Ipilimumab-induced autoimmune adrenalitis. 2013

Min, Le / Ibrahim, Nageatte. ·Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston MA, USA. Electronic address: lmin1@partners.org. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol · Pubmed #24622375.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

25 Article Clinical activity of ipilimumab for metastatic uveal melanoma: a retrospective review of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and University Hospital of Lausanne experience. 2013

Luke, Jason J / Callahan, Margaret K / Postow, Michael A / Romano, Emanuela / Ramaiya, Nikhil / Bluth, Mark / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Lawrence, Donald P / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Ott, Patrick A / Flaherty, Keith T / Sullivan, Ryan J / Harding, James J / D'Angelo, Sandra / Dickson, Mark / Schwartz, Gary K / Chapman, Paul B / Wolchok, Jedd D / Hodi, F Stephen / Carvajal, Richard D. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. ·Cancer · Pubmed #23913718.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma exhibits a high incidence of metastases; and, to date, there is no systemic therapy that clearly improves outcomes. The anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) antibody ipilimumab is a standard of care for metastatic melanoma; however, the clinical activity of CTLA-4 inhibition in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma is poorly defined. METHODS: To assess ipilimumab in this setting, the authors performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis of 4 hospitals in the United States and Europe. Clinical characteristics, toxicities, and radiographic disease burden, as determined by central, blinded radiology review, were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with uveal melanoma were identified, including 34 patients who received 3 mg/kg ipilimumab and 5 who received 10 mg/kg ipilimumab. Immune-related response criteria and modified World Health Organization criteria were used to assess the response rate (RR) and the combined response plus stable disease (SD) rate after 12 weeks, after 23 weeks, and overall (median follow-up, 50.4 weeks [12.6 months]). At week 12, the RR was 2.6%, and the response plus SD rate was 46.%; at week 23, the RR was 2.6%, and the response plus SD rate was 28.2%. There was 1 complete response and 1 late partial response (at 100 weeks after initial SD) for an immune-related RR of 5.1%. Immune-related adverse events were observed in 28 patients (71.8%) and included 7 (17.9%) grade 3 and 4 events. Immune-related adverse events were more frequent in patients who received 10 mg/kg ipilimumab than in those who received 3 mg/kg ipilimumab. The median overall survival from the first dose of ipilimumab was 9.6 months (95% confidence interval, 6.3-13.4 months; range, 1.6-41.6 months). Performance status, lactate dehydrogenase level, and an absolute lymphocyte count ≥ 1000 cells/μL at week 7 were associated significantly with survival. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter, retrospective analysis of 4 hospitals in the United States and Europe of patients with uveal melanoma, durable responses to ipilimumab and manageable toxicity were observed.

Next