Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Karl D. Lewis
Based on 35 articles published since 2009
(Why 35 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, K. D. Lewis wrote the following 35 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Review New targeted therapies in melanoma. 2013

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

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

2 Review Vemurafenib: the road to personalized medicine in melanoma. 2012

Amaria, R N / Lewis, K D / Jimeno, A. ·University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. ·Drugs Today (Barc) · Pubmed #22384451.

ABSTRACT: Advanced melanoma has a poor prognosis due to its resistance to traditional chemotherapeutics, leading to the search for alternative treatment approaches. With the finding that approximately 50% of melanomas harbor an activating mutation in the serine/threonine-protein kinase B-raf gene (BRAF), inhibition of mutated B-raf represented an attractive and innovative focus for the development of novel targeted therapy potentially benefiting a large proportion of melanoma patients. Impressive response rates with an overall survival benefit in addition to minimal treatment-related toxicity in phase I-III clinical studies led to the FDA's approval of vemurafenib for patients with locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600E-mutated malignant melanoma in August 2011. While the majority of patients with BRAF-mutated disease show favorable treatment responses shortly after initiation of vemurafenib therapy, the median progression-free survival is 6 months, making the search for resistance mechanisms a high priority. While vemurafenib represents an excellent model for successful targeted anticancer therapy, long-term safety data are needed and rational combination with other agents will be critical to prevent or circumvent the development of resistance.

3 Review Novel therapies in melanoma. 2011

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

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

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

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

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

5 Clinical Trial Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain. 2018

Tawbi, Hussein A / Forsyth, Peter A / Algazi, Alain / Hamid, Omid / Hodi, F Stephen / Moschos, Stergios J / Khushalani, Nikhil I / Lewis, Karl / Lao, Christopher D / Postow, Michael A / Atkins, Michael B / Ernstoff, Marc S / Reardon, David A / Puzanov, Igor / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Thomas, Reena P / Tarhini, Ahmad / Pavlick, Anna C / Jiang, Joel / Avila, Alexandre / Demelo, Sheena / Margolin, Kim. ·From the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (H.A.T.) · Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL (P.A.F., N.I.K.) · University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco (A. Algazi), the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles (O.H.), Stanford University Hospital, Palo Alto (R.P.T.), and the Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte (K.M.) - all in California · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston (F.S.H., D.A.R.) · University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill (S.J.M.) · University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aurora (K.L.) · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (C.D.L.) · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York (M.A.P.), Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo (M.S.E., I.P.), and New York University, Lake Success (A.C.P.) - all in New York · Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC (M.B.A.) · Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta (R.R.K.) · University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh (A.T.) · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (J.J., A. Avila, S.D.) · and Cleveland Clinic-Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland (A.T.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #30134131.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma have excluded patients with untreated brain metastases. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma and at least one measurable, nonirradiated brain metastasis (tumor diameter, 0.5 to 3 cm) and no neurologic symptoms received nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of intracranial clinical benefit, defined as the percentage of patients who had stable disease for at least 6 months, complete response, or partial response. RESULTS: Among 94 patients with a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of intracranial clinical benefit was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47 to 68); the rate of complete response was 26%, the rate of partial response was 30%, and the rate of stable disease for at least 6 months was 2%. The rate of extracranial clinical benefit was 56% (95% CI, 46 to 67). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 55% of patients, including events involving the central nervous system in 7%. One patient died from immune-related myocarditis. The safety profile of the regimen was similar to that reported in patients with melanoma who do not have brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the National Cancer Institute; CheckMate 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320058 .).

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

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

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

7 Clinical Trial Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAF 2018

Maio, Michele / Lewis, Karl / Demidov, Lev / Mandalà, Mario / Bondarenko, Igor / Ascierto, Paolo A / Herbert, Christopher / Mackiewicz, Andrzej / Rutkowski, Piotr / Guminski, Alexander / Goodman, Grant R / Simmons, Brian / Ye, Chenglin / Yan, Yibing / Schadendorf, Dirk / Anonymous33031188. ·Division of Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Siena, Italy. Electronic address: mmaiocro@gmail.com. · University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. · N N Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol, UK. · Department of Cancer Immunology, Poznan University for Medical Sciences, Med-POLONIA, Poznan, Poland. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland. · Melanoma Translational Research Group, Melanoma Institute Australia, Wollstonecraft, NSW, Australia. · Genentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29477665.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Systemic adjuvant treatment might mitigate the high risk of disease recurrence in patients with resected stage IIC-III melanoma. The BRIM8 study evaluated adjuvant vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with resected, BRAF METHODS: BRIM8 was a phase 3, international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study that enrolled 498 adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB (cohort 1) or stage IIIC (cohort 2) BRAF FINDINGS: The study enrolled 184 patients in cohort 2 (93 were assigned to vemurafenib and 91 to placebo) and 314 patients in cohort 1 (157 were assigned to vemurafenib and 157 to placebo). At the time of data cutoff (April 17, 2017), median study follow-up was 33·5 months (IQR 25·9-41·6) in cohort 2 and 30·8 months (25·5-40·7) in cohort 1. In cohort 2 (patients with stage IIIC disease), median disease-free survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 18·6-26·5) in the vemurafenib group versus 15·4 months (11·1-35·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·54-1·18; log-rank p=0·26). In cohort 1 (patients with stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB disease) median disease-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable) in the vemurafenib group versus 36·9 months (21·4-not estimable) in the placebo group (HR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37-0·78]; log-rank p=0·0010); however, the result was not significant because of the prespecified hierarchical prerequisite for the primary disease-free survival analysis of cohort 2 to show a significant disease-free survival benefit. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 141 (57%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 37 (15%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the vemurafenib group were keratoacanthoma (24 [10%] of 247 patients), arthralgia (17 [7%]), squamous cell carcinoma (17 [7%]), rash (14 [6%]), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (14 [6%]), although all keratoacanthoma events and most squamous cell carcinoma events were by default graded as grade 3. In the placebo group, grade 3-4 adverse events did not exceed 2% for any of the reported terms. Serious adverse events were reported in 40 (16%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 25 (10%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse event was basal cell carcinoma, which was reported in eight (3%) patients in each group. One patient in the vemurafenib group of cohort 2 died 2 months after admission to hospital for grade 3 hypertension; however, this death was not considered to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint of disease-free survival was not met in cohort 2, and therefore the analysis of cohort 1 showing a numerical benefit in disease-free survival with vemurafenib versus placebo in patients with resected stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB BRAF FUNDING: F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.

8 Clinical Trial A phase 2 study of ontuxizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting endosialin, in metastatic melanoma. 2018

D'Angelo, Sandra P / Hamid, Omid A / Tarhini, Ahmad / Schadendorf, Dirk / Chmielowski, Bartosz / Collichio, Frances A / Pavlick, Anna C / Lewis, Karl D / Weil, Susan C / Heyburn, John / Schweizer, Charles / O'Shannessy, Daniel J / Carvajal, Richard D. ·Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. · Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. · Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. · University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. · New York University, Lake Success, NY, USA. · University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA. · Morphotek, Inc., Exton, PA, USA. · Columbia University Medical Center, 177 Ft Washington Avenue, New York, NY, 10032, USA. rdc2150@cumc.columbia.edu. ·Invest New Drugs · Pubmed #29127533.

ABSTRACT: Objectives Ontuxizumab (MORAB-004) is a first-in-class monoclonal antibody that interferes with endosialin function, which is important in tumor stromal cell function, angiogenesis, and tumor growth. This Phase 2 study evaluated the 24-week progression-free survival (PFS) value, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of 2 doses of ontuxizumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. Patients and methods Patients with metastatic melanoma and disease progression after receiving at least 1 prior systemic treatment were randomized to receive ontuxizumab (2 or 4 mg/kg) weekly, without dose change, until disease progression. Results Seventy-six patients received at least 1 dose of ontuxizumab (40 received 2 mg/kg, 36 received 4 mg/kg). The primary endpoint, 24-week PFS value, was 11.4% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 5.3%-19.9%) for all patients (13.5% for 2 mg/kg and 8.9% for 4 mg/kg). The median PFS for all patients was 8.3 weeks (95% CI: 8.1-12.3 weeks). One patient receiving 4 mg/kg had a partial response, as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Twenty-seven of 66 response evaluable patients (40.9%) had stable disease. The median overall survival was 31.0 weeks (95% CI: 28.3-44.0 weeks). The most common adverse events overall were headache (55.3%), fatigue (48.7%), chills (42.1%), and nausea (36.8%), mostly grade 1 or 2. Conclusions Ontuxizumab at both doses was well tolerated. The 24-week PFS value was 11.4% among all ontuxizumab-treated patients. The overall response rate was 3.1% at the 4 mg/kg dose, with clinical benefit achieved in 42.4% of response evaluable patients. Efficacy of single-agent ontuxizumab at these doses in melanoma was low.

9 Clinical Trial Relationship between physician-adjudicated adverse events and patient-reported health-related quality of life in a phase II clinical trial (NCT01143402) of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. 2017

Atkinson, Thomas M / Hay, Jennifer L / Shoushtari, Alexander / Li, Yuelin / Paucar, Daniel J / Smith, Sloane C / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Doyle, Austin / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Quevedo, Jorge Fernando / Milhem, Mohammed M / Joshua, Anthony M / Linette, Gerald P / Gajewski, Thomas F / Lutzky, Jose / Lawson, David H / Lao, Christopher D / Flynn, Patrick J / Albertini, Mark R / Sato, Takami / Lewis, Karl / Marr, Brian / Abramson, David H / Dickson, Mark Andrew / Schwartz, Gary K / Carvajal, Richard D. ·Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave., 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, USA. atkinsot@mskcc.org. · Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave., 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, USA. · Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein Cancer Center, Bronx, NY, USA. · Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. · Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. · Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. · Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. · University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA. · Princess Margaret Hospital University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. · Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, FL, USA. · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. · Minnesota Oncology, Woodbury, MN, USA. · Univeristy of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. · Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · University of Colorado - Denver, Denver, CO, USA. · Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. ·J Cancer Res Clin Oncol · Pubmed #27921276.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Clinical trials commonly use physician-adjudicated adverse event (AE) assessment via the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) for decision-making. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are becoming more frequent in oncology; however, the relationship between physician-adjudicated AE assessment and HRQoL is understudied. METHODS: Data from a phase II trial (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01143402) where patients with metastatic uveal melanoma were randomized to receive selumetinib, an oral MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy were analyzed. Patients reported HRQoL at baseline, after 1 month, and end of treatment (n = 118), whereas physicians adjudicated AEs via CTCAE. Mean HRQoL scores were compared between patient randomization arms, as well as between those patients who did/did not receive dose modifications. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent had a CTCAE grade ≥1 for at least one treatment-associated AE, with 18% undergoing dose modification due to toxicity. Mean HRQoL scores did not significantly differ at each of the three time points. Patient and physician-adjudicated reports of nausea were significantly correlated at the start (r = 0.31, p < 0.01) and end of treatment (r = 0.42, p < 0.05). There were no significant correlations between need for dose modification and HRQoL scores. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high rate of physician-adjudicated AEs and need for dose modifications with selumetinib, patient-reported HRQoL was not impacted by treatment. Since HRQoL did not differ in the subgroup of patients who received dosage reductions due to AEs, patients may be willing to tolerate select AEs without dose modification (if medically appropriate). More research is needed to determine how to best integrate HRQoL data into clinical trial conduct.

10 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.

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

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

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

12 Clinical Trial Talimogene Laherparepvec Improves Durable Response Rate in Patients With Advanced Melanoma. 2015

Andtbacka, Robert H I / Kaufman, Howard L / Collichio, Frances / Amatruda, Thomas / Senzer, Neil / Chesney, Jason / Delman, Keith A / Spitler, Lynn E / Puzanov, Igor / Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Milhem, Mohammed / Cranmer, Lee / Curti, Brendan / Lewis, Karl / Ross, Merrick / Guthrie, Troy / Linette, Gerald P / Daniels, Gregory A / Harrington, Kevin / Middleton, Mark R / Miller, Wilson H / Zager, Jonathan S / Ye, Yining / Yao, Bin / Li, Ai / Doleman, Susan / VanderWalde, Ari / Gansert, Jennifer / Coffin, Robert S. ·Robert H.I. Andtbacka, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT · Howard L. Kaufman, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ · Frances Collichio, University of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill, NC · Thomas Amatruda, Minnesota Oncology, Fridley, MN · Neil Senzer, Mary Crowley Cancer Research Center, Dallas · Merrick Ross, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Jason Chesney, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY · Keith A. Delman, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA · Lynn E. Spitler, Northern California Melanoma Center, San Francisco · Gregory A. Daniels, University of California San Diego Medical Center, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla · Yining Ye, Bin Yao, Ai Li, Ari Vander Walde, and Jennifer Gansert, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA · Igor Puzanov, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN · Sanjiv S. Agarwala, St Luke's University Hospital and Health Network, Bethlehem, and Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA · Mohammed Milhem, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA · Lee Cranmer, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ · Brendan Curti, Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Portland, OR · Karl Lewis, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO · Troy Guthrie, Baptist Cancer Institute, Jacksonville · Jonathan S. Zager, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL · Gerald P. Linette, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO · Kevin Harrington, Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden Hospital, London · Mark R. Middleton, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom · Wilson H. Miller Jr, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada · and Susan Doleman and Robert S. Coffin, Amgen, Woburn, MA. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #26014293.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a herpes simplex virus type 1-derived oncolytic immunotherapy designed to selectively replicate within tumors and produce granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) to enhance systemic antitumor immune responses. T-VEC was compared with GM-CSF in patients with unresected stage IIIB to IV melanoma in a randomized open-label phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with injectable melanoma that was not surgically resectable were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to intralesional T-VEC or subcutaneous GM-CSF. The primary end point was durable response rate (DRR; objective response lasting continuously ≥ 6 months) per independent assessment. Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate. RESULTS: Among 436 patients randomly assigned, DRR was significantly higher with T-VEC (16.3%; 95% CI, 12.1% to 20.5%) than GM-CSF (2.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 4.5%]; odds ratio, 8.9; P < .001). Overall response rate was also higher in the T-VEC arm (26.4%; 95% CI, 21.4% to 31.5% v 5.7%; 95% CI, 1.9% to 9.5%). Median OS was 23.3 months (95% CI, 19.5 to 29.6 months) with T-VEC and 18.9 months (95% CI, 16.0 to 23.7 months) with GM-CSF (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P = .051). T-VEC efficacy was most pronounced in patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease and in patients with treatment-naive disease. The most common adverse events (AEs) with T-VEC were fatigue, chills, and pyrexia. The only grade 3 or 4 AE occurring in ≥ 2% of T-VEC-treated patients was cellulitis (2.1%). No fatal treatment-related AEs occurred. CONCLUSION: T-VEC is the first oncolytic immunotherapy to demonstrate therapeutic benefit against melanoma in a phase III clinical trial. T-VEC was well tolerated and resulted in a higher DRR (P < .001) and longer median OS (P = .051), particularly in untreated patients or those with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease. T-VEC represents a novel potential therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma.

13 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.

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

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

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

15 Clinical Trial Effect of selumetinib vs chemotherapy on progression-free survival in uveal melanoma: a randomized clinical trial. 2014

Carvajal, Richard D / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Quevedo, Jorge Fernando / Milhem, Mohammed M / Joshua, Anthony M / Kudchadkar, Ragini R / Linette, Gerald P / Gajewski, Thomas F / Lutzky, Jose / Lawson, David H / Lao, Christopher D / Flynn, Patrick J / Albertini, Mark R / Sato, Takami / Lewis, Karl / Doyle, Austin / Ancell, Kristin / Panageas, Katherine S / Bluth, Mark / Hedvat, Cyrus / Erinjeri, Joseph / Ambrosini, Grazia / Marr, Brian / Abramson, David H / Dickson, Mark Andrew / Wolchok, Jedd D / Chapman, Paul B / Schwartz, Gary K. ·Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York2Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York. · Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Hematology-Oncology, Nashville, Tennessee. · Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. · University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, Iowa City. · Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Washington University, St Louis, Missouri. · University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. · Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami Beach, Florida. · Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. · Metro Minnesota Community Clinical Oncology Program, St Louis Park. · University of Wisconsin, Madison. · Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · University of Colorado, Aurora. · Investigational Drug Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. · Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. ·JAMA · Pubmed #24938562.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE: Uveal melanoma is characterized by mutations in GNAQ and GNA11, resulting in mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway activation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of selumetinib, a selective, non-adenosine triphosphate competitive inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2, in uveal melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial comparing selumetinib vs chemotherapy conducted from August 2010 through December 2013 among 120 patients with metastatic uveal melanoma at 15 academic oncology centers in the United States and Canada. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred one patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive selumetinib, 75 mg orally twice daily on a continual basis (n = 50), or chemotherapy (temozolomide, 150 mg/m2 orally daily for 5 of every 28 days, or dacarbazine, 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 21 days [investigator choice]; n = 51) until disease progression, death, intolerable adverse effects, or withdrawal of consent. After primary outcome analysis, 19 patients were registered and 18 treated with selumetinib without randomization to complete the planned 120-patient enrollment. Patients in the chemotherapy group could receive selumetinib at the time of radiographic progression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Progression-free survival, the primary end point, was assessed as of April 22, 2013. Additional end points, including overall survival, response rate, and safety/toxicity, were assessed as of December 31, 2013. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival among patients randomized to chemotherapy was 7 weeks (95% CI, 4.3-8.4 weeks; median treatment duration, 8 weeks; interquartile range [IQR], 4.3-16 weeks) and among those randomized to selumetinib was 15.9 weeks (95% CI, 8.4-21.1 weeks; median treatment duration, 16.1 weeks; IQR, 8.1-25.3 weeks) (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.71; P < .001). Median overall survival time was 9.1 months (95% CI, 6.1-11.1 months) with chemotherapy and 11.8 months (95% CI, 9.8-15.7 months) with selumetinib (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.41-1.06; P = .09). No objective responses were observed with chemotherapy. Forty-nine percent of patients treated with selumetinib achieved tumor regression, with 14% achieving an objective radiographic response to therapy. Treatment-related adverse events were observed in 97% of patients treated with selumetinib, with 37% requiring at least 1 dose reduction. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this hypothesis-generating study of patients with advanced uveal melanoma, selumetinib compared with chemotherapy resulted in a modestly improved progression-free survival and response rate; however, no improvement in overall survival was observed. Improvement in clinical outcomes was accompanied by a high rate of adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01143402.

16 Clinical Trial A phase 2 randomised study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B) with or without dacarbazine in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2014

Carvajal, Richard D / Wong, Michael K / Thompson, John A / Gordon, Michael S / Lewis, Karl D / Pavlick, Anna C / Wolchok, Jedd D / Rojas, Patrick B / Schwartz, Jonathan D / Bedikian, Agop Y. ·Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: carvajar@mskcc.org. · USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA. · Pinnacle Oncology Hematology, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. · University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA. · New York University, New York, NY, USA. · Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. · ImClone Systems LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company, Bridgewater, NJ, USA. · MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #24930625.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B; LY3009806), a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, alone and in combination with dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). METHODS: Eligible patients received ramucirumab (10mg/kg) + dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2)) (Arm A) or ramucirumab only (10mg/kg) (Arm B) every 3 weeks. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), overall response and safety. FINDINGS: Of 106 randomised patients, 102 received study treatment (Arm A, N=52; Arm B, N=50). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median PFS was 2.6 months (Arm A) and 1.7 months (Arm B); median 6-month PFS rates were 30.7% and 17.9% and 12-month PFS rates were 23.7% and 15.6%, respectively. In Arm A, 9 (17.3%) patients had partial response (PR) and 19 (36.5%), stable disease (SD); PR and SD in Arm B were 2 (4.0%) and 21 (42.0%), respectively. Median OS was 8.7 months in Arm A and 11.1 months in Arm B. Patients in both arms tolerated the treatment with limited Grade 3/4 toxicities. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab alone or in combination with dacarbazine was associated with an acceptable safety profile in patients with MM. Although the study was not powered for comparison between treatment arms, PFS appeared greater with combination therapy. Sustained disease control was observed on both study arm.

17 Clinical Trial Pharmacodynamic effects and mechanisms of resistance to vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma. 2013

Trunzer, Kerstin / Pavlick, Anna C / Schuchter, Lynn / Gonzalez, Rene / McArthur, Grant A / Hutson, Thomas E / Moschos, Stergios J / Flaherty, Keith T / Kim, Kevin B / Weber, Jeffrey S / Hersey, Peter / Long, Georgina V / Lawrence, Donald / Ott, Patrick A / Amaravadi, Ravi K / Lewis, Karl D / Puzanov, Igor / Lo, Roger S / Koehler, Astrid / Kockx, Mark / Spleiss, Olivia / Schell-Steven, Annette / Gilbert, Houston N / Cockey, Louise / Bollag, Gideon / Lee, Richard J / Joe, Andrew K / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Ribas, Antoni. ·Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, 777 Preston Research Building, Nashville, TN 37232-6307, USA. jeff.sosman@vanderbilt.edu ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #23569304.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE To assess pharmacodynamic effects and intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma, leading to an understanding of the mechanism of action of vemurafenib and ultimately to optimization of metastatic melanoma therapy. METHODS In the phase II clinical study NP22657 (BRIM-2), patients received oral doses of vemurafenib (960 mg twice per day). Serial biopsies were collected to study changes in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, cell-cycle progression, and factors causing intrinsic or acquired resistance by immunohistochemistry, DNA sequencing, or somatic mutation profiling. Results Vemurafenib inhibited MAPK signaling and cell-cycle progression. An association between the decrease in extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) phosphorylation and objective response was observed in paired biopsies (n = 22; P = .013). Low expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog showed a modest association with lower response. Baseline mutations in MEK1(P124) coexisting with BRAF(V600) were noted in seven of 92 samples; their presence did not preclude objective tumor responses. Acquired resistance to vemurafenib associated with reactivation of MAPK signaling as observed by elevated ERK1/2 phosphorylation levels in progressive lesions and the appearance of secondary NRAS(Q61) mutations or MEK1(Q56P) or MEK1(E203K) mutations. These two activating MEK1 mutations had not previously been observed in vivo in biopsies of progressive melanoma tumors. CONCLUSION Vemurafenib inhibits tumor proliferation and oncogenic BRAF signaling through the MAPK pathway. Acquired resistance results primarily from MAPK reactivation driven by the appearance of secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK1 in subsets of patients. The data suggest that inhibition downstream of BRAF should help to overcome acquired resistance.

18 Clinical Trial Phase II study of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor Trametinib in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant cutaneous melanoma previously treated with or without a BRAF inhibitor. 2013

Kim, Kevin B / Kefford, Richard / Pavlick, Anna C / Infante, Jeffrey R / Ribas, Antoni / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Fecher, Leslie A / Millward, Michael / McArthur, Grant A / Hwu, Patrick / Gonzalez, Rene / Ott, Patrick A / Long, Georgina V / Gardner, Olivia S / Ouellet, Daniele / Xu, Yanmei / DeMarini, Douglas J / Le, Ngocdiep T / Patel, Kiran / Lewis, Karl D. ·Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. kkim@mdanderson.org ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #23248257.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: BRAF mutations promote melanoma cell proliferation and survival primarily through activation of MEK. The purpose of this study was to determine the response rate (RR) for the selective, allosteric MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212), in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, two-stage, phase II study with two cohorts. Patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor (cohort A) or treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (BRAF-inhibitor naive; cohort B) were enrolled. Patients received 2 mg of trametinib orally once daily. RESULTS: In cohort A (n = 40), there were no confirmed objective responses and 11 patients (28%) with stable disease (SD); the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. In cohort B (n = 57), there was one (2%) complete response, 13 (23%) partial responses (PRs), and 29 patients (51%) with SD (confirmed RR, 25%); the median PFS was 4.0 months. One patient each with BRAF K601E and BRAF V600R had prolonged PR. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events for all patients were skin-related toxicity, nausea, peripheral edema, diarrhea, pruritis, and fatigue. No cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma was observed. CONCLUSION: Trametinib was well tolerated. Significant clinical activity was observed in BRAF-inhibitor-naive patients previously treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Minimal clinical activity was observed as sequential therapy in patients previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor. Together, these data suggest that BRAF-inhibitor resistance mechanisms likely confer resistance to MEK-inhibitor monotherapy. These data support further evaluation of trametinib in BRAF-inhibitor-naive BRAF-mutant melanoma, including rarer forms of BRAF-mutant melanoma.

19 Clinical Trial Safety profile and pharmacokinetic analyses of the anti-CTLA4 antibody tremelimumab administered as a one hour infusion. 2012

Ribas, Antoni / Chesney, Jason A / Gordon, Michael S / Abernethy, Amy P / Logan, Theodore F / Lawson, David H / Chmielowksi, Bartosz / Glaspy, John A / Lewis, Karl / Huang, Bo / Wang, Erjian / Hsyu, Poe-Hirr / Gomez-Navarro, Jesus / Gerhardt, Diana / Marshall, Margaret A / Gonzalez, Rene. ·Division of Hematology-Oncology, 11-934 Factor Building, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1782, USA. aribas@mednet.ucla.edu ·J Transl Med · Pubmed #23171508.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: CTLA4 blocking monoclonal antibodies provide a low frequency but durable tumor responses in patients with metastatic melanoma, which led to the regulatory approval of ipilimumab based on two randomized clinical trials with overall survival advantage. The similarly fully human anti-CTLA4 antibody tremelimumab had been developed in the clinic at a fixed rate infusion, resulting in very prolonged infusion times. A new formulation of tremelimumab allowed testing a shorter infusion time. METHODS: A phase 1 multi-center study to establish the safety and tolerability of administering tremelimumab as a 1-hour infusion to patients with metastatic melanoma. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetic and clinical effects of tremelimumab. RESULTS: No grade 3 or greater infusion-related adverse events or other adverse events preventing the administration of the full tremelimumab dose were noted in 44 treated patients. The overall side effect profile was consistent with prior experiences with anti-CTLA4 antibodies. Objective tumor responses were noted in 11% of evaluable patients with metastatic melanoma, which is also consistent with the prior experience with CTLA4 antagonistic antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not identify any safety concerns when tremelimumab was administered as a 1-hour infusion. These data support further clinical testing of the 1-hour infusion of tremelimumab. (Clinical trial registration number NCT00585000).

20 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.).

21 Clinical Trial Activity of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced melanoma: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. 2012

Falchook, Gerald S / Lewis, Karl D / Infante, Jeffrey R / Gordon, Michael S / Vogelzang, Nicholas J / DeMarini, Douglas J / Sun, Peng / Moy, Christopher / Szabo, Stephen A / Roadcap, Lori T / Peddareddigari, Vijay G R / Lebowitz, Peter F / Le, Ngocdiep T / Burris, Howard A / Messersmith, Wells A / O'Dwyer, Peter J / Kim, Kevin B / Flaherty, Keith / Bendell, Johanna C / Gonzalez, Rene / Kurzrock, Razelle / Fecher, Leslie A. ·Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, Division of Cancer Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. gfalchoo@mdanderson.org ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #22805292.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: MEK is a member of the MAPK signalling cascade that is commonly activated in melanoma. Direct inhibition of MEK blocks cell proliferation and induces apoptosis. We aimed to analyse safety, efficacy, and genotyping data for the oral, small-molecule MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with melanoma. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, phase 1 three-part study (dose escalation, cohort expansion, and pharmacodynamic assessment). The main results of this study are reported elsewhere; here we present data relating to patients with melanoma. We obtained tumour samples to assess BRAF mutational status, and available tissues underwent exploratory genotyping analysis. Disease response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and adverse events were defined by common toxicity criteria. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00687622. FINDINGS: 97 patients with melanoma were enrolled, including 81 with cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma (36 BRAF mutant, 39 BRAF wild-type, six BRAF status unknown), and 16 with uveal melanoma. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash or dermatitis acneiform (n=80; 82%) and diarrhoea (44; 45%), most of which were grade 2 or lower. No cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas were recorded. Of 36 patients with BRAF mutations, 30 had not received a BRAF inhibitor before; two complete responses (both confirmed) and ten partial responses (eight confirmed) were noted in this subgroup (confirmed response rate, 33%). Median progression-free survival of this subgroup was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4). Of the six patients who had received previous BRAF inhibition, one unconfirmed partial response was recorded. Of 39 patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma, four partial responses were confirmed (confirmed response rate, 10%). INTERPRETATION: Our data show substantial clinical activity of trametinib in melanoma and suggest that MEK is a valid therapeutic target. Differences in response rates according to mutations indicate the importance of mutational analyses in the future. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

22 Clinical Trial Survival in BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma treated with vemurafenib. 2012

Sosman, Jeffrey A / Kim, Kevin B / Schuchter, Lynn / Gonzalez, Rene / Pavlick, Anna C / Weber, Jeffrey S / McArthur, Grant A / Hutson, Thomas E / Moschos, Stergios J / Flaherty, Keith T / Hersey, Peter / Kefford, Richard / Lawrence, Donald / Puzanov, Igor / Lewis, Karl D / Amaravadi, Ravi K / Chmielowski, Bartosz / Lawrence, H Jeffrey / Shyr, Yu / Ye, Fei / Li, Jiang / Nolop, Keith B / Lee, Richard J / Joe, Andrew K / Ribas, Antoni. ·Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN 37232-6307, USA. jeff.sosman@vanderbilt.edu ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #22356324.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of melanomas harbor activating (V600) mutations in the serine-threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF). The oral BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib (PLX4032) frequently produced tumor regressions in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma in a phase 1 trial and improved overall survival in a phase 3 trial. METHODS: We designed a multicenter phase 2 trial of vemurafenib in patients with previously treated BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma to investigate the efficacy of vemurafenib with respect to overall response rate (percentage of treated patients with a tumor response), duration of response, and overall survival. The primary end point was the overall response rate as ascertained by the independent review committee; overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients had a median follow-up of 12.9 months (range, 0.6 to 20.1). The confirmed overall response rate was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 62; 6% with a complete response and 47% with a partial response), the median duration of response was 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.6), and the median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.1). Primary progression was observed in only 14% of patients. Some patients had a response after receiving vemurafenib for more than 6 months. The median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 18.3). The most common adverse events were grade 1 or 2 arthralgia, rash, photosensitivity, fatigue, and alopecia. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas (the majority, keratoacanthoma type) were diagnosed in 26% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib induces clinical responses in more than half of patients with previously treated BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. In this study with a long follow-up, the median overall survival was approximately 16 months. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00949702.).

23 Clinical Trial A multi-center phase II evaluation of the small molecule survivin suppressor YM155 in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. 2011

Lewis, Karl D / Samlowski, Wolfram / Ward, John / Catlett, Joseph / Cranmer, Lee / Kirkwood, John / Lawson, David / Whitman, Eric / Gonzalez, Rene. ·University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO, USA. karl.lewis@ucdenver.edu ·Invest New Drugs · Pubmed #19830389.

ABSTRACT: METHODS: This was an open-label, multi-center, study of YM155 monotherapy in subjects with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Thirty-four chemotherapy naïve subjects were treated with YM155 at a dose of 4.8 mg/m(2)/day administered by continuous infusion for 168-hours (7 days) followed by a 14-day rest period, for up to 6 cycles or until disease progression. RESULTS: One subject had a partial response to treatment seen at cycle two and lasting through cycle eight. Median progression-free survival was 1.3 months (95% CI; 1.3-2.7). Median overall survival was 9.9 months (95% CI; 7.0-14.5). Overall, YM155 was well tolerated with the most common (>20%) adverse events reported as fatigue, nausea, pyrexia, headache, arthralgia and back pain. Only four subjects required dose reductions. CONCLUSIONS: YM155 was well tolerated in subjects with advanced melanoma; however, the pre-specified primary end-point for efficacy which required two responders in 29 evaluable subjects was not achieved.

24 Article Immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiosurgery for newly diagnosed melanoma brain metastases. 2018

Robin, Tyler P / Breeze, Robert E / Smith, Derek E / Rusthoven, Chad G / Lewis, Karl D / Gonzalez, Rene / Brill, Amanda / Saiki, Robin / Stuhr, Kelly / Gaspar, Laurie E / Karam, Sana D / Raben, David / Kavanagh, Brian D / Nath, Sameer K / Liu, Arthur K. ·Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. tyler.robin@ucdenver.edu. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, 1665 Aurora Court, Suite 1032, MS F706, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. tyler.robin@ucdenver.edu. · Department of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. · Department of Pediatrics, Cancer Center Biostatistics Core, University of Colorado and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. · Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. ·J Neurooncol · Pubmed #29909499.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Brain metastases are common in metastatic melanoma and radiosurgery is often utilized for local control. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) play a central role in contemporary melanoma management; however, there is limited data exploring outcomes and potential toxicities for patients treated with CPIs and radiosurgery. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all consecutive cases of newly diagnosed melanoma brain metastases (MBM) treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery at a single institution between 2012 and 2017, and included only patients that initiated CPIs within 8 weeks before or after radiosurgery. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were included with a median follow-up of 31.6 months. Two-year local control was 92%. Median time to out-of-field CNS and extra-CNS progression were 8.4 and 7.9 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months and median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR). Twenty-five patients (66%) received anti-CTLA4 and 13 patients (34%) received anti-PD-1+/-anti-CTLA4. Compared with anti-CTLA4, patients that received anti-PD-1+/-anti-CTLA4 had significant improvements in time to out-of-field CNS progression (p = 0.049), extra-CNS progression (p = 0.015), and PFS (p = 0.043), with median time to out-of-field CNS progression of NR vs. 3.1 months, median time to extra-CNS progression of NR vs. 4.4 months, and median PFS of 20.3 vs. 2.4 months. Six patients (16%) developed grade ≥ 2 CNS toxicities (grade 2: 3, grade 3: 3, grade 4/5: 0). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes were observed in patients that initiated CPIs within 8 weeks of undergoing radiosurgery for newly diagnosed MBM. There appears to be an advantage to anti-PD-1 or combination therapy compared to anti-CTLA4.

25 Article Whole-exome sequencing identifies recurrent SF3B1 R625 mutation and comutation of NF1 and KIT in mucosal melanoma. 2017

Hintzsche, Jennifer D / Gorden, Nicholas T / Amato, Carol M / Kim, Jihye / Wuensch, Kelsey E / Robinson, Steven E / Applegate, Allison J / Couts, Kasey L / Medina, Theresa M / Wells, Keith R / Wisell, Joshua A / McCarter, Martin D / Box, Neil F / Shellman, Yiqun G / Gonzalez, Rene C / Lewis, Karl D / Tentler, John J / Tan, Aik Choon / Robinson, William A. ·aDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology bDepartment of Pathology cDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine dDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health eUniversity of Colorado Cancer Center fDepartment of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #28296713.

ABSTRACT: Mucosal melanomas are a rare subtype of melanoma, arising in mucosal tissues, which have a very poor prognosis due to the lack of effective targeted therapies. This study aimed to better understand the molecular landscape of these cancers and find potential new therapeutic targets. Whole-exome sequencing was performed on mucosal melanomas from 19 patients and 135 sun-exposed cutaneous melanomas, with matched peripheral blood samples when available. Mutational profiles were compared between mucosal subgroups and sun-exposed cutaneous melanomas. Comparisons of molecular profiles identified 161 genes enriched in mucosal melanoma (P<0.05). KIT and NF1 were frequently comutated (32%) in the mucosal subgroup, with a significantly higher incidence than that in cutaneous melanoma (4%). Recurrent SF3B1 R625H/S/C mutations were identified and validated in 7 of 19 (37%) mucosal melanoma patients. Mutations in the spliceosome pathway were found to be enriched in mucosal melanomas when compared with cutaneous melanomas. Alternative splicing in four genes were observed in SF3B1-mutant samples compared with the wild-type samples. This study identified potential new therapeutic targets for mucosal melanoma, including comutation of NF1 and KIT, and recurrent R625 mutations in SF3B1. This is the first report of SF3B1 R625 mutations in vulvovaginal mucosal melanoma, with the largest whole-exome sequencing project of mucosal melanomas to date. The results here also indicated that the mutations in SF3B1 lead to alternative splicing in multiple genes. These findings expand our knowledge of this rare disease.

Next