Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Kevin B. Kim
Based on 83 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, Kevin Kim wrote the following 83 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
1 Editorial Is there a role for targeting vascular endothelial growth factor/receptor axis in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma? 2013

Kim, Kevin B. · ·Cancer · Pubmed #22915026.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

2 Review Update on systemic therapy for advanced cutaneous melanoma and recent development of novel drugs. 2018

Swe, Thein / Kim, Kevin B. ·California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, 2333 Buchanan St., San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. · California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, 2333 Buchanan St., San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. kimkb@sutterhealth.org. ·Clin Exp Metastasis · Pubmed #30019239.

ABSTRACT: Malignant melanoma is generally chemo- and radio-resistant, and patients with advanced melanoma have a poor prognosis. However, with our increased understanding of the checkpoint immune molecules and genetic alterations of melanoma cells, more effective immunotherapy, such as anti CTLA4 antibody and anti PD-1 antibodies, and targeted drug therapy, such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors, have been developed, resulting in improved overall survival and quality of life of patients with advanced melanoma. In addition, emerging technologies to develop prognostic and predictive biomarkers for response to systemic therapy could help clinicians make more accurate assessments of the disease and formulate more effective treatment plans. In this review, current standard systemic therapy options and recently developed novel drugs for advanced melanoma are discussed.

3 Review Dabrafenib. 2014

Kainthla, Radhika / Kim, Kevin B / Falchook, Gerald S. ·Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA, kainthla@bcm.edu. ·Recent Results Cancer Res · Pubmed #24756796.

ABSTRACT: Dabrafenib was developed as a highly specific reversible inhibitor of V600-mutant BRAF kinase, an oncogenic mutation driving proliferation in many different types of aggressive tumors. Metastatic melanoma has a high prevalence of V600-mutant BRAF, and clinical trials showed that dabrafenib improved response rates and median progression-free survival in patients with V600E BRAF mutations, including those with brain metastasis. Preliminary results suggest that dabrafenib may also have some role in non-melanoma V600-mutant solid tumors; however, more studies are needed. With a well-tolerated toxicity profile and few drug interactions, dabrafenib is effective as a monotherapy; however, resistance eventually develops in most patients after persistent exposure to the drug. Current research focuses on combination strategies with dabrafenib to not only improve response rates but also overcome resistance.

4 Review Dabrafenib therapy for advanced melanoma. 2014

Trinh, Van Anh / Davis, Jennifer E / Anderson, Jaime E / Kim, Kevin B. ·University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. ·Ann Pharmacother · Pubmed #24259661.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To summarize the clinical development of dabrafenib and to highlight the clinically relevant distinct characteristics of dabrafenib in contrast to vemurafenib. DATA SOURCE: An English-language literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed (1966-June 2013), using the keywords GSK2118436, dabrafenib, vemurafenib, selective BRAF inhibitor, and advanced melanoma, was conducted. Data were also obtained from package inserts, meeting abstracts, and clinical registries. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All relevant published articles on dabrafenib and vemurafenib were reviewed. Clinical trial registries and meeting abstracts were used for information about ongoing studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: BRAF(V600E) mutation confers constitutive BRAK kinase activation in melanoma cells, promoting tumor growth. This discovery led to the development of BRAF kinase inhibitors like vemurafenib and dabrafenib. Dabrafenib has been approved to treat patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma based on its clinical benefit demonstrated in a randomized phase III study. It has also been shown to be safe and effective in patients with BRAF mutant advanced melanoma involving the brain. Dabrafenib is well tolerated, with the most common adverse effects being hyperkeratosis, headache, pyrexia, and arthralgia. Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that one BRAF inhibitor is superior to the other. With similar efficacy, therapy selection will likely be influenced by differential tolerability and cost. CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib joins vemurafenib to confirm the superior clinical outcome of the BRAF inhibitors when compared with dacarbazine in patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive advanced melanoma. Active research is ongoing to expand its utility into the adjuvant setting and to circumvent rapid emergence of drug resistance.

5 Review MEK inhibition in the treatment of advanced melanoma. 2013

Salama, April K S / Kim, Kevin B. ·Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3476, Durham, NC, 27710, USA, april.salama@duke.edu. ·Curr Oncol Rep · Pubmed #23975010.

ABSTRACT: The RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway is considered to be the most important signal transduction pathway in melanoma, and alterations in this pathway via various genetic mutations, such as BRAF and NRAS mutations, are known to be important drivers of melanomagenesis. As MEK is an essential intermediary kinase protein within this pathway, inhibition of MEK has been of a great interest as a molecular target therapy in melanoma. In fact, trametinib, a selective MEK inhibitor, has been shown to have a survival benefit over cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with V600 BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to the FDA approval for this patient population. MEK inhibitors may also be useful in treatment of advanced melanoma harboring other genetic mutations, such as NRAS and GNAQ/GNA11 mutations. Here, we review and discuss the preclinical and clinical data regarding MEK inhibitors and their role in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

6 Review Drug safety evaluation of vemurafenib in the treatment of melanoma. 2013

Tsai, Kenneth Y / Nowroozi, Sasan / Kim, Kevin B. ·The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Dermatology, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA. ·Expert Opin Drug Saf · Pubmed #23800008.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Nearly 50% of melanomas harbor a BRAF mutation, and vemurafenib has shown a clinical response rate of approximately 50% and a median progression-free survival duration of ∼ 6 - 7 months in patients with V600 BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. Based on a Phase III study demonstrating a survival advantage over dacarbazine, vemurafenib was approved by the regulatory agencies for the treatment of V600 BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma in 2011. Although vemurafenib does not induce life-threatening toxicity frequently associated with conventional chemotherapy. It is associated with other adverse events, particularly skin toxicities. AREAS COVERED: We discuss the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy, and safety profile of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma harboring a BRAF mutation. In particular, we describe in detail the skin toxicity of vemurafenib, including the development of keratoacanthoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. EXPERT OPINION: Both preclinical and clinical investigations have shed light on our understanding of the skin toxicities associated with vemurafenib and have led to potential strategies for reducing the frequency of these adverse events. Further understanding of other associated toxicities could significantly improve the quality of life for patients undergoing treatment with vemurafenib or another BRAF inhibitor.

7 Review Trametinib (GSK1120212) in the treatment of melanoma. 2013

Salama, April K S / Kim, Kevin B. ·Duke University Medical Center, Division of Medical Oncology, Durham, NC, USA. ·Expert Opin Pharmacother · Pubmed #23432625.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The discovery of somatic mutations in melanoma has advanced our knowledge of the biology of the disease. The mutations, such as those in NRAS, BRAF, GNAQ and GNA11, promote the growth of melanoma cells in most part through the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. Understanding the molecular pathways of some of these mutations has resulted in the successful development of selective BRAF inhibitors. Yet, a cure for advanced melanoma is far from reality. Targeting MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK), an essential intermediary kinase protein within the MAPK pathway, may be a promising way to treat patients with BRAF or other genomic mutation. AREAS COVERED: The authors discuss the MAPK pathway in melanoma and review the preclinical and clinical studies of the MEK inhibitor, trametinib , in melanoma. They also discuss the potential of using trametinib in the targeted therapy of advanced melanoma. EXPERT OPINION: Studies have demonstrated the activity of trametinib in BRAF-mutant melanoma, suggesting that it could be a very reasonable alternative to BRAF inhibitors for these patients. Current clinical investigations have shown great promise with the combination of trametinib and dabrafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma; a number of clinical trials of trametinib in combination with other targeted drugs are underway.

8 Review Selumetinib (AZD6244; ARRY-142886) in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. 2012

Patel, Sapna P / Kim, Kevin B. ·The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. ·Expert Opin Investig Drugs · Pubmed #22394161.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in men and seventh most common in women in the USA, and prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma is poor. The mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling pathway is essential for proliferation and survival of melanoma cells. Effective inhibition of MAP kinase kinase (MEK) protein has been shown to downregulate the MAP kinase pathway, resulting in melanoma cell growth arrest and apoptosis. Selumetinib is an orally available, selective non-ATP-competitive MEK1 and MEK2 inhibitor. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the authors discuss the rationale for MEK inhibition therapy in melanoma and summarize data from the preclinical and clinical studies of selumetinib for advanced melanoma. EXPERT OPINION: As a majority of advanced melanomas have an activated MAP kinase signal transduction pathway, there is a strong preclinical rationale for investigating selumetinib in patients with metastatic melanoma. The results of early clinical studies of selumetinib suggest that selumetinib may have a role in melanoma therapy, especially in certain subsets of patients, such as those whose tumor harbors a BRAF mutation. Current studies of selumetinib are addressing the efficacy of selumetinib in these patients.

9 Review Does complete response to systemic therapy in patients with stage IV melanoma translate into long-term survival? 2011

Bedikian, Agop Y / Johnson, Marcella M / Warneke, Carla L / Papadopoulos, Nicholas E / Kim, Kevin B / Hwu, Wen-Jen / McIntyre, Susan / Rohlfs, Michelle / Homsi, Jade / Hwu, Patrick. ·Departments of aMelanoma Medical Oncology bBioinformatics cNursing, MD, Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #21102360.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of complete response (CR) to systemic therapy on survival. We reviewed the cases of 647 chemo-naive patients with metastatic melanoma who were treated with cisplatin-vinblastine-dacarbazine or cisplatin-taxol-dacarbazine alone, or cisplatin-vinblastine-dacarbazine together with interferon α or interleukin-2 plus interferon α. After excluding patients with uveal melanoma and patients who had resection of metastases, 567 patients were eligible to participate in this analysis. An event chart is presented for the 51 patients with CR and for three random samples of patients without CR. We compared overall survival of responders versus nonresponders using response as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox proportional hazards model. In addition, we used the landmark method, choosing 6 months as the landmark. Logistic regression techniques were used to determine factors associated with CR to therapy. All P values were 2-tailed and considered significant at α less than 0.05. Analyses were conducted using SAS for Windows. In this analysis, CR was associated with patients who were younger, male, and who had better performance status, lower M-stage, no liver metastases, and no visceral sites involved, normal LDH and had received biochemotherapy. While accounting for these factors, the relationship between CR and survival remained statistically significant, suggesting a causal relationship between response and survival. Using 6-month landmark analysis method, we still find a significant difference in overall survival between response groups, favoring patients who achieved CR with systemic therapy. In conclusion, CR to systemic therapy is associated with long-term survival in patients with stage IV melanoma.

10 Clinical Trial A first-in-human phase I, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study of the oral RAF/VEGFR-2 inhibitor (RAF265) in locally advanced or metastatic melanoma independent from BRAF mutation status. 2017

Izar, Benjamin / Sharfman, William / Hodi, F Stephen / Lawrence, Donald / Flaherty, Keith T / Amaravadi, Ravi / Kim, Kevin B / Puzanov, Igor / Sosman, Jeffrey / Dummer, Reinhard / Goldinger, Simone M / Lam, Lyhping / Kakar, Shefali / Tang, Zhongwen / Krieter, Oliver / McDermott, David F / Atkins, Michael B. ·Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Center for Cancer Precision Medicine/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the Broad Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts. · Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland. · Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, California. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt, Tennessee. · University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. · Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey. · Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. · Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia. ·Cancer Med · Pubmed #28719152.

ABSTRACT: To establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), safety profile, and anti-tumor efficacy of RAF265. We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase-I, dose-escalation trial of RAF265, an orally available RAF kinase/VEGFR-2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma. Pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis, pharmacodynamics (PD) and tumor response assessment were conducted. We evaluated metabolic tumor response by 18[F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET), tissue biomarkers using immunohistochemistry (IHC), and modulators of angiogenesis. RAF265 has a serum half-life of approximately 200 h. The MTD was 48 mg once daily given continuously. Among 77 patients, most common treatment-related adverse effects were fatigue (52%), diarrhea (34%), weight loss (31%) and vitreous floaters (27%). Eight of 66 evaluable patients (12.1%) had an objective response, including seven partial and one complete response. Responses occurred in BRAF-mutant and BRAF wild-type (WT) patients. Twelve of 58 (20.7%) evaluable patients had a partial metabolic response. On-treatment versus pretreatment IHC staining in 23 patients showed dose-dependent p-ERK inhibition. We observed a significant temporal increase in placental growth factor levels and decrease in soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (sVEGFR-2) levels in all dose levels. RAF265 is an oral RAF/VEGFR-2 inhibitor that produced antitumor responses, metabolic responses, and modulated angiogenic growth factor levels. Antitumor activity occurred in patients with BRAF-mutant and BRAF-WT disease. Despite low activity at tolerable doses, this study provides a framework for the development of pan-RAF inhibitors and modulators of angiogenesis for the treatment of melanoma.

11 Clinical Trial A phase II study of ipilimumab plus temozolomide in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2017

Patel, Sapna P / Kim, Dae Won / Bassett, Roland L / Cain, Suzanne / Washington, Edwina / Hwu, Wen-Jen / Kim, Kevin B / Papadopoulos, Nicholas E / Homsi, Jade / Hwu, Patrick / Bedikian, Agop Y. ·Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. sppatel@mdanderson.org. · Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. · Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 USF Magnolia Dr., Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. · Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. · California Pacific Medical Center, 2323 Sacramento St. #2, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. · The University of Texas Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, 2946 E Banner Gateway Dr., Gilbert, AZ, 85234, USA. ·Cancer Immunol Immunother · Pubmed #28612140.

ABSTRACT: Checkpoint blockade has revolutionized the treatment of melanoma; however, it benefits only the minority of patients. Several agents have been combined with immunotherapy to improve T-cell activation and persistence including growth factor, chemotherapy, and radiation. Preclinical data suggest that temozolomide, which metabolizes to the same active compound as dacarbazine, selectively depletes regulatory T cells. This potential immunomodulatory effect of temozolomide provides rationale for combination with ipilimumab. We performed an open-label single-arm phase II study of ipilimumab plus temozolomide in the frontline setting for patients with metastatic melanoma and LDH ≤2× upper limit of normal. Ipilimumab was given at 10 mg/kg on day 1 and temozolomide 200 mg/m

12 Clinical Trial Clinical, Molecular, and Immune Analysis of Dabrafenib-Trametinib Combination Treatment for BRAF Inhibitor-Refractory Metastatic Melanoma: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial. 2016

Chen, Guo / McQuade, Jennifer L / Panka, David J / Hudgens, Courtney W / Amin-Mansour, Ali / Mu, Xinmeng Jasmine / Bahl, Samira / Jané-Valbuena, Judit / Wani, Khalida M / Reuben, Alexandre / Creasy, Caitlyn A / Jiang, Hong / Cooper, Zachary A / Roszik, Jason / Bassett, Roland L / Joon, Aron Y / Simpson, Lauren M / Mouton, Rosalind D / Glitza, Isabella C / Patel, Sapna P / Hwu, Wen-Jen / Amaria, Rodabe N / Diab, Adi / Hwu, Patrick / Lazar, Alexander J / Wargo, Jennifer A / Garraway, Levi A / Tetzlaff, Michael T / Sullivan, Ryan J / Kim, Kevin B / Davies, Michael A. ·Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. · Division of Cancer Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Departments of Pathology and Translational and Molecular Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. · Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts. · Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston7Department of Genomic Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. · Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. · California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco. · Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston11Department of Systems Biology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. ·JAMA Oncol · Pubmed #27124486.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE: Combined treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib (CombiDT) achieves clinical responses in only about 15% of patients with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi)-refractory metastatic melanoma in contrast to the higher response rate observed in BRAFi-naïve patients. Identifying correlates of response and mechanisms of resistance in this population will facilitate clinical management and rational therapeutic development. OBJECTIVE: To determine correlates of benefit from CombiDT therapy in patients with BRAFi-refractory metastatic melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center, single-arm, open-label phase 2 trial of CombiDT treatment in patients with BRAF V600 metastatic melanoma resistant to BRAFi monotherapy conducted between September 2012 and October 2014 at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Key eligibility criteria for participants included BRAF V600 metastatic melanoma, prior BRAFi monotherapy, measurable disease (RECIST 1.1), and tumor accessible for biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with dabrafenib (150 mg, twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg/d) continuously until disease progression or intolerance. All participants underwent a mandatory baseline biopsy, and optional biopsy specimens were obtained on treatment and at disease progression. Whole-exome sequencing, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis for BRAF splicing, RNA sequencing, and immunohistochemical analysis were performed on tumor samples, and blood was analyzed for levels of circulating BRAF V600. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were secondary clinical end points. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients were screened, and 23 enrolled. Among evaluable patients, the confirmed ORR was 10%; disease control rate (DCR) was 45%, and median PFS was 13 weeks. Clinical benefit was associated with duration of prior BRAFi therapy greater than 6 months (DCR, 73% vs 11% for ≤6 months; P = .02) and decrease in circulating BRAF V600 at day 8 of cycle 1 (DCR, 75% vs 18% for no decrease; P = .02) but not with pretreatment mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway mutations or activation. Biopsy specimens obtained during treatment demonstrated that CombiDT therapy failed to achieve significant MAPK pathway inhibition or immune infiltration in most patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The baseline presence of MAPK pathway alterations was not associated with benefit from CombiDT in patients with BRAFi-refractory metastatic melanoma. Failure to inhibit the MAPK pathway provides a likely explanation for the limited clinical benefit of CombiDT in this setting. Circulating BRAF V600 is a promising early biomarker of clinical response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01619774.

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 Phase 1b study of lenvatinib (E7080) in combination with temozolomide for treatment of advanced melanoma. 2015

Hong, David S / Kurzrock, Razelle / Falchook, Gerald S / Andresen, Corina / Kwak, Jennifer / Ren, Min / Xu, Lucy / George, Goldy C / Kim, Kevin B / Nguyen, Ly M / O'Brien, James P / Nemunaitis, John. ·The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO, USA. · Former employees of Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA. · Eisai Inc., Oncology, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA. · Mary Crowley Cancer Research Center, Dallas, TX, USA. ·Oncotarget · Pubmed #26503473.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: In this phase 1b study, patients with stage 4 or unresectable stage 3 melanoma were treated with escalating doses of lenvatinib (once daily) and temozolomide (TMZ) (days 1-5) in 28-day cycles, to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination. Dose Level (DL)1: lenvatinib 20 mg, TMZ 100 mg/m2; DL2: lenvatinib 24 mg, TMZ 100 mg/m2; DL3: lenvatinib 24 mg, TMZ 150 mg/m2. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded and tumor response assessed per RECIST 1.0. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in 1 of 32 treated patients (DL1); MTD was not reached. The highest dose administered was lenvatinib 24 mg + TMZ 150 mg/m2. Most common treatment-related AEs included fatigue (56.3%), hypertension (53.1%), and proteinuria (46.9%). Overall objective response rate was 18.8% (6 patients), all partial response; (DL1, n = 1; DL3, n = 5). Stable disease (SD) ≥ 16 weeks was observed in 28.1% of patients (DL1 and DL2, n = 1 each; DL3, n = 7); 12.5% of patients had SD ≥ 23 weeks. Single and repeat-dose pharmacokinetics of lenvatinib were comparable across cycles and with concomitant TMZ administration. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib 24 mg/day + TMZ 150 mg/m2/day (days 1-5) demonstrated modest clinical activity, an acceptable safety profile, and was administered without worsening of either lenvatinib- or TMZ-related toxicities in this patient group.

15 Clinical Trial Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of the Multikinase Inhibitor Lenvatinib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors and in an Expanded Cohort of Patients with Melanoma. 2015

Hong, David S / Kurzrock, Razelle / Wheler, Jennifer J / Naing, Aung / Falchook, Gerald S / Fu, Siqing / Kim, Kevin B / Davies, Michael A / Nguyen, Ly M / George, Goldy C / Xu, Lucy / Shumaker, Robert / Ren, Min / Mink, Jennifer / Bedell, Cynthia / Andresen, Corina / Sachdev, Pallavi / O'Brien, James P / Nemunaitis, John. ·The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. dshong@mdanderson.org. · The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, Colorado. · Eisai Inc., Oncology, Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. · Former employees of Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. · Mary Crowley Cancer Research Center, Dallas, Texas. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #26169970.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: This "3+3" phase I study evaluated the safety, biologic, and clinical activity of lenvatinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in patients with solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Ascending doses of lenvatinib were administered per os twice daily in 28-day cycles. Safety and response were assessed for all patients. Angiogenic and apoptotic factors were tested as possible biomarkers in an expanded melanoma cohort. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were treated in 3 cohorts: 18 with intermittent twice-daily dosing (7 days on, 7 days off) of 0.1-3.2 mg; 33 with twice-daily dosing of 3.2-12 mg; and 26 with twice-daily dosing of 10 mg (expanded melanoma cohort). Maximum tolerated dose was established at 10 mg per os twice daily. Prominent drug-related toxicities included hypertension (43%), fatigue (42%), proteinuria (39%), and nausea (25%); dose-limiting toxicities included hypertension, fatigue, and proteinuria. Twelve patients (15.6%) achieved partial response (PR, n = 9) or unconfirmed PR (uPR, n = 3), and 19 (24.7%) achieved stable disease (SD) ≥23 weeks. Total PR/uPR/SD ≥23 weeks was 40.3% (n = 31). Responses (PR/uPR) by disease were as follows: melanoma, 5 of 29 patients (includes 1 patient with NRAS mutation); thyroid, 3 of 6 patients; pancreatic, 1 of 2 patients; lung, 1 of 1 patients; renal, 1 of 1 patients; endometrial, 1 of 4 patients; and ovarian, 1 of 5 patients. AUC(0-24) and C(max) increased dose proportionally. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model analyses, increased baseline systolic blood pressure and decreased angiopoietin-1 ratio (2 hours:baseline) were associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) in the expanded melanoma cohort (P = 0.041 and P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The toxicity profile, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of lenvatinib are encouraging. Decreases in the angiopoietin-1 ratio correlated with longer PFS in melanoma patients.

16 Clinical Trial Long-term outcome in BRAF(V600E) melanoma patients treated with vemurafenib: Patterns of disease progression and clinical management of limited progression. 2015

Puzanov, Igor / Amaravadi, Ravi K / McArthur, Grant A / Flaherty, Keith T / Chapman, Paul B / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Ribas, Antoni / Shackleton, Mark / Hwu, Patrick / Chmielowski, Bartosz / Nolop, Keith B / Lin, Paul S / Kim, Kevin B. ·Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, 2220 Pierce Avenue #777, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. Electronic address: igor.puzanov@vanderbilt.edu. · Abramson Cancer Center and the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Electronic address: Ravi.Amaravadi@uphs.upenn.edu. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 2 St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, Vic 3002, Australia. Electronic address: grant.mcarthur@petermac.org. · Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA. Electronic address: kflaherty@partners.org. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: chapmanp@mskcc.org. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, 2220 Pierce Avenue #777, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. Electronic address: jeff.sosman@vanderbilt.edu. · Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, 11-934 Factor Bldg., 10833 Le Conte Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90095-1782, USA. Electronic address: aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 2 St Andrews Place, East Melbourne, Vic 3002, Australia. Electronic address: Mark.Shackleton@petermac.org. · The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: phwu@mdanderson.org. · Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, 11-934 Factor Bldg., 10833 Le Conte Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90095-1782, USA. Electronic address: BChmielowski@mednet.ucla.edu. · Plexxikon Inc., 91 Bolivar Drive, Berkeley, CA 94710, USA. Electronic address: easybreathe@msn.com. · Plexxikon Inc., 91 Bolivar Drive, Berkeley, CA 94710, USA. Electronic address: plin@plexxikon.com. · The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: KimKB@sutterhealth.org. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #25980594.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Vemurafenib induces tumour regression in most patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma; eventually, most experience progressive disease (PD). Long-term follow-up of patients with BRAF(V600E) melanoma treated in the phase 1 vemurafenib trial is reported. METHODS: Patients received vemurafenib 240-1120 mg (dose escalation cohort) or 960 mg (extension cohort) orally twice daily. Clinical response was evaluated every 8 weeks by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST). Patients with PD amenable to local therapy (surgery or radiotherapy) were allowed to continue vemurafenib after progression. Overall survival (OS) from time of treatment initiation and from PD was estimated. Sites of PD were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (escalation cohort, n = 16; extension cohort, n = 32) received therapeutic doses of vemurafenib (⩾ 240 mg twice daily). Forty-four patients had PD by the time of this analysis and four remained progression free (follow-up time, 1.2-56.1 months). Median OS was 14 months (range, 1.2-56.1); 3- and 4-year melanoma-specific survival rate in the extension cohort was 26% and 19%, respectively. Median OS was 26.0 months (range, 7.7-56.1) among 20 patients who continued vemurafenib after local therapy. Median treatment duration beyond initial PD was 3.8 months (range, 1.1-26.6). In the extension cohort, six and five patients were alive after 3 and 4 years, respectively, on vemurafenib monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Some patients with melanoma achieved long-term survival with vemurafenib monotherapy. Continuation of vemurafenib after PD might be beneficial in some patients because remaining disease might continue to respond to BRAF inhibition.

17 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.

18 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.

19 Clinical Trial Phase I/II study of the antibody-drug conjugate glembatumumab vedotin in patients with advanced melanoma. 2014

Ott, Patrick A / Hamid, Omid / Pavlick, Anna C / Kluger, Harriet / Kim, Kevin B / Boasberg, Peter D / Simantov, Ronit / Crowley, Elizabeth / Green, Jennifer A / Hawthorne, Thomas / Davis, Thomas A / Sznol, Mario / Hwu, Patrick. ·Patrick A. Ott and Anna C. Pavlick, New York University Cancer Institute, New York, NY · Omid Hamid and Peter D. Boasberg, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA · Harriet Kluger and Mario Sznol, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT · Kevin B. Kim and Patrick Hwu, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Ronit Simantov, Elizabeth Crowley, Jennifer A. Green, Thomas Hawthorne, and Thomas A. Davis, Celldex Therapeutics, Hampton, NJ. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #25267741.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The antibody-drug conjugate glembatumumab vedotin links a fully human immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody against the melanoma-related glycoprotein NMB (gpNMB) to the potent cytotoxin monomethyl auristatin E. This study evaluated the safety and activity of glembatumumab vedotin in patients with advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received glembatumumab vedotin every 3 weeks (schedule 1) in a dose escalation and phase II expansion at the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). Dosing during 2 of 3 weeks (schedule 2) and weekly (schedule 3) was also assessed. The primary end points were safety and pharmacokinetics. The secondary end points included antitumor activity, gpNMB expression, and immunogenicity. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen patients were treated using schedule 1 (n = 79), schedule 2 (n = 15), or schedule 3 (n = 23). The MTDs were 1.88, 1.5, and 1.0 mg/kg for schedules 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities that occurred in two or more patients included rash, neutropenia, fatigue, neuropathy, arthralgia, myalgia, and diarrhea. Three treatment-related deaths (resulting from pneumococcal sepsis, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and renal failure) occurred at doses exceeding the MTDs. In the schedule 1 phase II expansion cohort (n = 34), five patients (15%) had a partial response and eight patients (24%) had stable disease for ≥ 6 months. The objective response rate (ORR) was 2 of 6 (33%) for the schedule 2 MTD and 3 of 12 (25%) for the schedule 3 MTD. Rash was correlated with a greater ORR and improved progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: Glembatumumab vedotin is active in advanced melanoma. The schedule 1 MTD (1.88 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) was associated with a promising ORR and was generally well tolerated. More frequent dosing was potentially associated with a greater ORR but increased toxicity.

20 Clinical Trial Dose selection, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (GSK2118436). 2014

Falchook, Gerald S / Long, Georgina V / Kurzrock, Razelle / Kim, Kevin B / Arkenau, H-Tobias / Brown, Michael P / Hamid, Omid / Infante, Jeffrey R / Millward, Michael / Pavlick, Anna / Chin, Melvin T / O'Day, Steven J / Blackman, Samuel C / Curtis, C Martin / Lebowitz, Peter / Ma, Bo / Ouellet, Daniele / Kefford, Richard F. ·Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. gerald.falchook@scresearch.net georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. · Melanoma Institute Australia and University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Westmead Institute for Cancer Research, Westmead Millennium Institute, and Department of Medical Oncology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. gerald.falchook@scresearch.net georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. · Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. · Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · GlaxoSmithKline Medicines Research Unit, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia. · Cancer Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. · Experimental Therapeutics/Immunotherapy, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. · Drug Development Unit, Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee. · Cancer Council Trials and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. · Division of Medical Oncology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. · Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia. · GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. · Melanoma Institute Australia and University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Westmead Institute for Cancer Research, Westmead Millennium Institute, and Department of Medical Oncology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #24958809.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Dabrafenib is a selective, potent ATP-competitive inhibitor of the BRAFV600-mutant kinase that has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials. We report the rationale for dose selection in the first-in-human study of dabrafenib, including pharmacokinetics, tissue pharmacodynamics, 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) pharmacodynamics, and dose-response relationship. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Dabrafenib was administered orally once, twice (BID), or three times daily (TID). Selected dose cohorts were expanded to collect adequate data on safety, pharmacokinetics, or pharmacodynamics. A recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was chosen based on safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and response data. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-four patients were enrolled and treated with doses ranging from 12 mg once daily to 300 mg BID in 10 cohorts. Pharmacokinetic assessment of dabrafenib demonstrated a less-than-dose-proportional increase in exposure after repeat dosing above 150 mg BID. Similar to parent drug concentrations, exposure for all metabolites demonstrated less-than-dose-proportional increases. Predicted target inhibition of pERK (>80%) was achieved at 150 mg BID, with a similar magnitude of inhibition at higher doses in BRAFV600 mutation melanoma biopsy samples. Although there was large variability between patients, FDG uptake decreased with higher daily doses in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. A favorable activity and tolerability profile was demonstrated at 150 mg BID. There was no improvement with TID dosing compared with BID dosing, based on FDG-PET and tumor response analyses in patients with melanoma. CONCLUSION: The RP2D of dabrafenib was determined to be 150 mg BID after considering multiple factors, including pharmacokinetics, tissue pharmacodynamics, FDG-PET pharmacodynamics, and the dose-response relationship. A maximum tolerated dose for dabrafenib was not determined.

21 Clinical Trial Phase I trial of biochemotherapy with cisplatin, temozolomide, and dose escalation of nab-paclitaxel combined with interleukin-2 and interferon-α in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2014

Alrwas, Anas / Papadopoulos, Nicholas E / Cain, Suzanne / Patel, Sapna P / Kim, Kevin B / Deburr, Tawania L / Bassett, Roland / Hwu, Wen-Jen / Bedikian, Agop Y / Davies, Michael A / Woodman, Scott E / Hwu, Patrick. ·aHealth Science Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Departments of bMelanoma Medical Oncology cPalliative Care and Rehabilitative Medicine dBiostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #24743052.

ABSTRACT: The primary objective of this study was to determine the safety, toxicity, and maximum tolerated dose of nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel as part of biochemotherapy for metastatic melanoma and to determine whether substituting nab-paclitaxel for less potent agents could increase response rates and duration. Treatment consisted of intravenous cisplatin (20 mg/m) on days 1-4, oral temozolomide (250 mg/m) on days 1-3, subcutaneous interferon-α (5×10 IU/m) on days 1-5, and continuous intravenous interleukin-2 (9×10 IU/m) for 96 h on days 1-4. A standard 3+3 dose escalation method was used; the nab-paclitaxel starting dose was 100 mg/m on day 1 and 70 mg/m on day 5. The treatment cycle was repeated every 3 weeks and toxicity was assessed weekly. Ten patients were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicities included diarrhea, transaminasemia, and neutropenia. The maximum tolerated dose was not identified because the nab-paclitaxel dose on day 1 at the lowest planned dose (80 mg/m) caused dose-limiting toxicity in two of five patients. Of the nine patients who were evaluable for response, five had a partial response. The median time to disease progression was 5.30 months and the median overall survival was 8.73 months. Six patients developed central nervous system metastasis at a median of 5.33 months after treatment initiation. Biochemotherapy including nab-paclitaxel according to the doses and schedule regimen used in the present study has significant toxicity. Substituting dacarbazine with temozolomide did not prevent central nervous system metastasis in patients with metastatic melanoma.

22 Clinical Trial Phase II trial (BREAK-2) of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (GSK2118436) in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2013

Ascierto, Paolo A / Minor, David / Ribas, Antoni / Lebbe, Celeste / O'Hagan, Anne / Arya, Niki / Guckert, Mary / Schadendorf, Dirk / Kefford, Richard F / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Hamid, Omid / Amaravadi, Ravi / Simeone, Ester / Wilhelm, Tabea / Kim, Kevin B / Long, Georgina V / Martin, Anne-Marie / Mazumdar, Jolly / Goodman, Vicki L / Trefzer, Uwe. ·Paolo A. Ascierto, Ester Simeone, Instituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione "G. Pascale," Napoli, Italy · David Minor, California Pacific Center for Melanoma Research and Treatment, San Francisco · Antoni Ribas, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles · Omid Hamid, Experimental Therapeutics/Immunotherapy, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA · Anne O'Hagan, Niki Arya, Mary Guckert, Anne-Marie Martin, Jolly Mazumdar, Vicki L. Goodman, GlaxoSmithKline Oncology, Collegeville · Ravi Amaravadi, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA · Kevin B. Kim, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Celeste Lebbe, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, Université Paris Diderot, Paris · Jean-Jacques Grob, Aix-Marseille University, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Hôpital Timone, Marseille, France · Dirk Schadendorf, University Hospital Essen, Essen · Tabea Wilhelm, Uwe Trefzer, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany · Richard F. Kefford, Georgina V. Long, Westmead Hospital and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #23918947.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Dabrafenib (GSK2118436) is a potent inhibitor of mutated BRAF kinase. Our multicenter, single-arm, phase II study assessed the safety and clinical activity of dabrafenib in BRAF(V600E/K) mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (mut(+) MM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Histologically confirmed patients with stage IV BRAF(V600E/K) mut(+) MM received oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily until disease progression, death, or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate in BRAF(V600E) mut(+) MM patients. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Exploratory objectives included the comparison of BRAF mutation status between tumor-specific circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and tumor tissue, and the evaluation of cfDNA as a predictor of clinical outcome. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients with BRAF(V600E) and 16 patients with BRAF(V600K) mut(+) MM were enrolled onto the study. In the BRAF(V600E) group, 45 patients (59%) had a confirmed response (95% CI, 48.2 to 70.3), including five patients (7%) with complete responses. Two patients (13%) with BRAF(V600K) mut(+) MM had a confirmed partial response (95% CI, 0 to 28.7). In the BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) groups, median PFS was 6.3 months and 4.5 months, and median OS was 13.1 months and 12.9 months, respectively. The most common AEs were arthralgia (33%), hyperkeratosis (27%), and pyrexia (24%). Overall, 25 patients (27%) experienced a serious AE and nine patients (10%) had squamous cell carcinoma. Baseline cfDNA levels predicted response rate and PFS in BRAF(V600E) mut(+) MM patients. CONCLUSION: Dabrafenib was well tolerated and clinically active in patients with BRAF(V600E/K) mut(+) MM. cfDNA may be a useful prognostic and response marker in future studies.

23 Clinical Trial Imatinib for melanomas harboring mutationally activated or amplified KIT arising on mucosal, acral, and chronically sun-damaged skin. 2013

Hodi, F Stephen / Corless, Christopher L / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Fletcher, Jonathan A / Zhu, Meijun / Marino-Enriquez, Adrian / Friedlander, Philip / Gonzalez, Rene / Weber, Jeffrey S / Gajewski, Thomas F / O'Day, Steven J / Kim, Kevin B / Lawrence, Donald / Flaherty, Keith T / Luke, Jason J / Collichio, Frances A / Ernstoff, Marc S / Heinrich, Michael C / Beadling, Carol / Zukotynski, Katherine A / Yap, Jeffrey T / Van den Abbeele, Annick D / Demetri, George D / Fisher, David E. ·F. Stephen Hodi, Anita Giobbie-Hurder, Philip Friedlander, Jason J. Luke, Katherine A. Zukotynski, Jeffrey T. Yap, Annick D. Van den Abbeele, and George D. Demetri, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · Jonathan A. Fletcher, Meijun Zhu, and Adrian Marino-Enriquez, Brigham and Women's Hospital · Donald Lawrence, Keith T. Flaherty, and David E. Fisher, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA · Christopher L. Corless, Michael C. Heinrich, and Carol Beadling, Portland Veterans Administration Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR · Philip Friedlander, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY · Rene Gonzalez, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO · Jeffrey S. Weber, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL · Thomas F. Gajewski, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL · Steven J. O'Day, Beverly Hills Cancer Center, Beverly Hills, CA · Kevin B. Kim, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Frances A. Collichio, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC · and Marc S. Ernstoff, Geisel School of Medicine and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Hanover, NH. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #23775962.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Amplifications and mutations in the KIT proto-oncogene in subsets of melanomas provide therapeutic opportunities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter phase II trial of imatinib in metastatic mucosal, acral, or chronically sun-damaged (CSD) melanoma with KIT amplifications and/or mutations. Patients received imatinib 400 mg once per day or 400 mg twice per day if there was no initial response. Dose reductions were permitted for treatment-related toxicities. Additional oncogene mutation screening was performed by mass spectroscopy. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled (24 evaluable). Eight patients (33%) had tumors with KIT mutations, 11 (46%) with KIT amplifications, and five (21%) with both. Median follow-up was 10.6 months (range, 3.7 to 27.1 months). Best overall response rate (BORR) was 29% (21% excluding nonconfirmed responses) with a two-stage 95% CI of 13% to 51%. BORR was significantly greater than the hypothesized null of 5% and statistically significantly different by mutation status (7 of 13 or 54% KIT mutated v 0% KIT amplified only). There were no statistical differences in rates of progression or survival by mutation status or by melanoma site. The overall disease control rate was 50% but varied significantly by KIT mutation status (77% mutated v 18% amplified). Four patients harbored pretreatment NRAS mutations, and one patient acquired increased KIT amplification after treatment. CONCLUSION: Melanomas that arise on mucosal, acral, or CSD skin should be assessed for KIT mutations. Imatinib can be effective when tumors harbor KIT mutations, but not if KIT is amplified only. NRAS mutations and KIT copy number gain may be mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to imatinib.

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

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

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

25 Clinical Trial Chemical castration of melanoma patients does not increase the frequency of tumor-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells after peptide vaccination. 2013

Vence, Luis M / Wang, Chiyu / Pappu, Himabindu / Anson, Ryan E / Patel, Tejal A / Miller, Priscilla / Bassett, Roland / Lizee, Gregory / Overwijk, Willem W / Komanduri, Krishna / Benjamin, Cara / Alvarado, Gladys / Patel, Sapna P / Kim, Kevin / Papadopoulos, Nicholas E / Bedikian, Agop Y / Homsi, Jade / Hwu, Wen-Jen / Boyd, Richard / Radvanyi, Laszlo / Hwu, Patrick. ·M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX 77054, USA. lmvence@mdanderson.org ·J Immunother · Pubmed #23603862.

ABSTRACT: Peptide vaccination against tumor-associated antigens remains one of the most common methods of immunization in cancer vaccine clinical trials. Although peptide vaccination has been reported to increase circulating antigen-specific T-cells, they have had limited clinical efficacy and there is a necessity to increase their capacity to generate strong antitumor responses. We sought to improve the clinical efficacy of peptide-based vaccines in cancer immunotherapy of metastatic melanoma using a LHRH agonist (leuprolide) as adjuvant. Seventy HLA-A*0201 stage IIb-IV melanoma patients were vaccinated with class I HLA-A*0201-restricted gp100209-2M peptide and stratified for HLA-DP4 restriction. HLA-DP4 patients were also vaccinated with class II HLA-DP4-restricted MAGE-3243-258 peptide. Patients from both groups were randomized to receive 2 doses of leuprolide or not. Here we report the increase in PBMC TREC levels at week 24 after peptide vaccination, which was independent of the leuprolide treatment. This change was mirrored by a small increase in the TREC-enriched CD8CD45RAROCD27CD103, but not the TREC-enriched CD4CD45RAROCD31 T-cell population. Serum concentration of 2 important factors for thymopoiesis was measured: insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels were not changed, whereas a moderate increase in IL-7 levels was noted in the sera of all patients 6 weeks after vaccination. Increased expression of CD127 (IL-7 receptor-α) at week 24, compared with baseline, was only seen in the CD8CD45RAROCD27CD103 T-cell population. Our results suggest that leuprolide has no effect on thymic output when used as peptide vaccine adjuvant, but IFA-based peptide vaccination may unexpectedly affect the thymus by increasing thymic output of new T cells.

Next