Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Mario Mandala
Based on 53 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, M. Mandalà wrote the following 53 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3
1 Review Rational combination of cancer immunotherapy in melanoma. 2019

Mandalà, Mario / Rutkowski, Piotr. ·Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Piazza OMS 1, 24100, Bergamo, Italy. mariomandala@tin.it. · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute, Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland. ·Virchows Arch · Pubmed #30552520.

ABSTRACT: The recent advances in cancer immunotherapy with unprecedented success in therapy of advanced melanoma represent a turning point in the landscape of melanoma treatment. Given the complexity of activation of immunological system and the physiologic multifactorial homeostatic mechanisms controlling immune responses, combinatorial strategies are eagerly needed in melanoma therapy. Nevertheless, rational selection of immunotherapy combinations should be more biomarker-guided, including not only the cancer immunogram, PD-L1 expression, interferon gene expression signature, mutational burden, and tumor infiltration by CD8+ T cells but also intratumoral T cell exhaustion and microbiota composition. In this review, we summarize the rationale to develop combination treatment strategies in melanoma and discuss biological background that could help to design new combinations in order to improve patients' outcome.

2 Review [Pembrolizumab for the treatment of melanoma: updates and perspectives.] 2017

Chiarion Sileni, Vanna / Mandalà, Mario / Queirolo, Paola. ·Istituto Oncologico Veneto, Padova. · Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo. · Oncologia Medica 2, Ospedale San Martino, Genova. ·Recenti Prog Med · Pubmed #29297903.

ABSTRACT: Checkpoint inhibitors immunotherapy was a breakthrough in anti-tumor treatments. Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies are now a standard of treatment for advanced melanoma patients, with a 3-year overall survival of over 50% and a low rate (<20%) of severe toxicities in the phase 3 studies. The aim of this review was to report the most important updates on anti-PD-1 drug pembrolizumab from ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) and ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) 2017 Annual Meetings.

3 Review Rationale for New Checkpoint Inhibitor Combinations in Melanoma Therapy. 2017

Mandalà, Mario / Tondini, Carlo / Merelli, Barbara / Massi, Daniela. ·Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Piazza OMS 1, 24100, Bergamo, Italy. mariomandala@tin.it. · Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Piazza OMS 1, 24100, Bergamo, Italy. · Division of Pathological Anatomy, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. ·Am J Clin Dermatol · Pubmed #28432648.

ABSTRACT: The use of monoclonal antibodies that block immunologic checkpoints, which mediate adaptive immune resistance, has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma patients. Specifically, targeting single immune suppressive molecules such as cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), or programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) expressed on T cells or its primary ligand, programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), resulted in pronounced clinical benefit for a subset of melanoma patients. Although single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has demonstrated promising clinical activity in metastatic melanoma patients, there is still a significant proportion of patients who show primary resistance to these therapies. Increased clinical efficacy was reported in phase II and III randomized studies by co-targeting CTLA-4 and PD-1 in the treatment of advanced melanoma, indicating the existence of multiple non-redundant immunosuppressive pathways in the tumor microenvironment. Nevertheless, only 50% of patients responded to combined anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 treatment. Additionally, the combination regimen was associated with severe toxicity in >50-60% of patients. In this review we summarize the rationale for new checkpoint inhibitor combinations in melanoma therapy and discuss how biologic-driven stratification enables the design of optimal combination therapies tailored to target different tumor microenvironments.

4 Review Immunomodulating property of MAPK inhibitors: from translational knowledge to clinical implementation. 2017

Mandalà, Mario / De Logu, Francesco / Merelli, Barbara / Nassini, Romina / Massi, Daniela. ·Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Unit of Clinical Pharmacology and Oncology, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. · Division of Pathological Anatomy, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. ·Lab Invest · Pubmed #27991907.

ABSTRACT: Treatment of metastatic melanoma was radically changed by the introduction of inhibitors of BRAF, an oncogene mutated in 40-50% of patients. Another area of advancement was the use of immunotherapy, and specifically, immune checkpoint inhibitors. There is compelling evidence that oncogenic BRAF, in addition to driving melanoma proliferation, differentiation and survival, induces T-cell suppression directly through the secretion of inhibitory cytokines or through membrane expression of co-inhibitory molecules such as the PD-1 ligands PD-L1 or PD-L2. Furthermore, the presence of oncogenic BRAF leads to an immune suppressive phenotype characterized by the presence of inhibitory immune cells such as regulatory T cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, or tumor-associated macrophages, which can in turn inhibit the function of tumor-infiltrating T cells. Growing evidence suggests that, in addition to their established molecular mechanism of action, the therapeutic efficacy of BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors relies on additional factors that affect the tumor-host interactions, including the enhancement of melanoma antigen expression and the increase in immune response against tumor cells. Focus of the present review is to summarize the off target mechanisms of response to BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors and the synergy between targeted therapy and immunotherapy as the biological source to open a window of strategic opportunities for the design of new exciting clinical trials.

5 Review Wnt/β-catenin signaling in melanoma: Preclinical rationale and novel therapeutic insights. 2016

Xue, Gongda / Romano, Emanuela / Massi, Daniela / Mandalà, Mario. ·Department of Biomedicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. · Immunotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology, INSERM Research Unit 932, Institut Curie, Paris, France. · Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. · Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: mariomandala@tin.it. ·Cancer Treat Rev · Pubmed #27395773.

ABSTRACT: WNT signaling regulates embryonic development and tissue homeostasis in the adult stage. Evolutionarily, activation of the WNT pathway is triggered by a large family of cytokines and activates a broad spectrum of downstream targets through two independent branches mediated by β-catenin (defined as canonical pathway) or PLC and small GTPase (defined as non-canonical pathway), respectively. Recent studies revealed the crucial role of WNT in the maintenance of cell metabolism and stemness as well as its deregulation in tumourigenesis and malignant transformation through oncogenic reprogramming, which contributes to cancer cell proliferation and differentiation, survival, stress response and resistance. In addition, multiple functional mutations discovered in human tumours have been reported to cause malignancy, indicating this pathway as a novel therapeutic target in oncology. Notably, emerging data highlights its involvement in the crosstalk between immune and cancer cells. However, contradictory effects have been also observed in different pre-clinical models when strategic(???) inhibitors are tested. In this review, we address the multifaceted regulatory mechanisms of WNT signaling in cancer, with a particular focus on current melanoma therapy, which has witnessed dramatic improvement in the last five years.

6 Review The complex management of atypical Spitz tumours. 2016

Massi, Daniela / De Giorgi, Vincenzo / Mandalà, Mario. ·Division of Pathological Anatomy, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Italy. Electronic address: daniela.massi@unifi.it. · Division of Dermatology, University of Florence, Italy. · Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. ·Pathology · Pubmed #27020385.

ABSTRACT: In recent years, advances in molecular genetic characterisation have revealed that atypical Spitz tumours (ASTs) are basically heterogeneous diseases, although the clinical relevance of these findings is yet to be determined. Evidence of molecularly-defined diverse groups of lesions continues to accumulate; however, conflicting, confusing, and overlapping terminology has fostered ambiguity and lack of clarity in the field in general. The lack of fundamental diagnostic (morphological) unambiguous classification framework results in a number of challenges in the interpretation of the molecular genetic data. In this review, we discuss the main difficulties for pathologists and clinicians in the complex management of ASTs, with particular emphasis on the different genetic and biological features of recently-described entities, and offer our view of what could be medically reasonable to guide a rational approach in light of current data.

7 Review PD-L1 expression in cancer patients receiving anti PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016

Gandini, Sara / Massi, Daniela / Mandalà, Mario. ·Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. · Division of Pathological Anatomy, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Italy. · Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: mariomandala@tin.it. ·Crit Rev Oncol Hematol · Pubmed #26895815.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite the success of immunotherapy directed at inhibiting of programmed death-1 (PD-1)/PD-ligand (L)1 signaling, it is not established whether PD-L1 expression correlates with the clinical response and outcome in different tumors. The present meta-analysis investigates whether the PD-L1 status, detected by immunohistochemistry, is associated with clinical response and mortality in patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. METHODS: A systematic literature search and quantitative analysis were planned, conducted and reported following CONSORT and QUORUM checklists, up to December 2015, to identify clinical trials with information on cancer outcome by PD-L1 immunohistochemical expression in tumor tissues. We used random effects models to estimate Summary Objective Response Rates (SORRs) and Summary Odd Ratio (SOR) for the comparison of PD-L1 positive and negative patients. RESULTS: We summarized 20 trials carried out in metastatic melanoma (MM), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies (4230 MM, 1417 NSCLC and 312 RCC patients). Positive PD-L1 MM patients showed a significant decrease (53%) in the risk of mortality vs. negative cases with no heterogeneity. Furthermore, SORRs were 45% and 27% in PD-L1 positive and negative patients, respectively, and SOR indicates a significant difference in term of responses: 2.14 (95% CI: 1.65, 2.77), with low between-study heterogeneity (I(2)=35%). Furthermore, results from randomized clinical trials on MM showed that PD-L1 expression is significantly associated with greater clinical response rates to anti-PD1 treatments (SOR 1.89; 95%CI: 1.35, 2.64) but not to other treatments (SOR 0.96; 95%CI: 0.5, 1.87). In non-squamous NSCLC SORRs were 29% and 11% in PD-L1 positive and negative patients, respectively, and SOR indicates a significant difference between responses: 3.78 (1.54, 9.24), with no between-study heterogeneity. Squamous NSCLC and RCC did not show any significant difference in response according to the PD-L1 status. CONCLUSION: PD-L1 expression is significantly associated with mortality and clinical response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies in MM patients and with clinical response in patients with non-squamous NSCLC.

8 Review Nras in melanoma: targeting the undruggable target. 2014

Mandalà, Mario / Merelli, Barbara / Massi, Daniela. ·Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: mariomandala@tin.it. · Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Division of Pathological Anatomy, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Italy. ·Crit Rev Oncol Hematol · Pubmed #24985059.

ABSTRACT: RAS belongs to the guanosine 5'-triphosphate (GTP)-binding proteins' family, and oncogenic mutations in codons 12, 13, or 61 of RAS family occur in approximately one third of all human cancers with N-RAS mutations found in about 15-20% of melanomas. The importance of RAS signaling as a potential target in cancer is emphasized not only by the prevalence of RAS mutations, but also by the high number of RAS activators and effectors identified in mammalian cells that places the RAS proteins at the crossroads of several, important signaling networks. Ras proteins are crucial crossroads of signaling pathways that link the activation of cell surface receptors with a wide variety of cellular processes leading to the control of proliferation, apoptosis and differentiation. Furthermore, oncogenic ras proteins interfere with metabolism of tumor cells, microenvironment's remodeling, evasion of the immune response, and finally contributes to the metastatic process. After 40 years of basic, translational and clinical research, much is now known about the molecular mechanisms by which these monomeric guanosine triphosphatase-binding proteins promote cellular malignancy, and it is clear that they regulate signaling pathways involved in the control of cell proliferation, survival, and invasiveness. In this review we summarize the biological role of RAS in cancer by focusing our attention on the biological rational and strategies to target RAS in melanoma.

9 Review Interferon alpha for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma: review of international literature and practical recommendations from an expert panel on the use of interferon. 2014

Ascierto, Paolo A / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Muggiano, Antonio / Mandalà, Mario / Pimpinelli, Nicola / Del Vecchio, Michele / Rinaldi, Gaetana / Simeone, Ester / Queirolo, Paola. · ·J Chemother · Pubmed #24621162.

ABSTRACT: The degree to which interferon (IFN) alpha-2b offers real clinical benefits in the adjuvant therapy of melanoma at high risk of recurrence is a subject of debate. This, together with questions over optimal treatment scheme and concerns over toxicity, has limited its clinical use. On the basis of a review of the literature, an Italian Expert Panel has made practical recommendations for a consistent approach in the use of IFN. Although it is clear that more research into predictive factors to identify patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant IFN therapy is required, IFN remains the only currently available adjuvant option for melanoma. Based on meta-analyses of clinical trials, there is clear evidence that treatment with IFN is beneficial with regard to overall and recurrence-free survival (RFS). As such, IFN should be offered to patients who are at high risk of recurrence. Specific recommendations with regard to disease stage are provided.

10 Review Tissue prognostic biomarkers in primary cutaneous melanoma. 2014

Mandalà, Mario / Massi, Daniela. ·Unit of Clinical and Translational Research, Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. ·Virchows Arch · Pubmed #24487785.

ABSTRACT: Cutaneous melanoma (CM) causes the greatest number of skin cancer-related deaths worldwide. Predicting CM prognosis is important to determine the need for further investigation, counseling of patients, to guide appropriate management (particularly the need for postoperative adjuvant therapy), and for assignment of risk status in groups of patients entering clinical trials. Since recurrence rate is largely independent from stages defined by morphological and morphometric criteria, there is a strong need for identification of additional robust prognostic factors to support decision-making processes. Most data on prognostic biomarkers in melanoma have been evaluated in tumor tissue samples by conventional morphology and immunohistochemistry (IHC) as well as DNA and RNA analyses. In the present review, we critically summarize main high-quality studies investigating IHC-based protein biomarkers of melanoma outcome according to Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK)-derived criteria. Pathways have been classified and conveyed in the "biologic road" previously described by Hanahan and Weinberg. Data derived from genomic and transcriptomic technologies have been critically reviewed to better understand if any of investigated proteins or gene signatures should be incorporated into clinical practice or still remain a field of melanoma research. Despite a wide body of research, no molecular prognostic biomarker has yet been translated into clinical practice. Conventional tissue biomarkers, such as Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate and lymph node positivity, remain the backbone prognostic indicators in melanoma.

11 Review Targeting the PD1/PD-L1 axis in melanoma: biological rationale, clinical challenges and opportunities. 2014

Merelli, Barbara / Massi, Daniela / Cattaneo, Laura / Mandalà, Mario. ·Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: bmerelli@hpg23.it. · Division of Pathological Anatomy, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Italy. Electronic address: daniela.massi@unifi.it. · Division of Pathological Anatomy, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: lcattaneo@hpg23.it. · Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: mariomandala@tin.it. ·Crit Rev Oncol Hematol · Pubmed #24029602.

ABSTRACT: A dynamic interplay exists between host and tumor, and the ability of the tumor to evade immune recognition often determines the clinical course of the disease. Significant enthusiasm currently exists for a new immunotherapeutic strategy: the use of immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies that directly enhance the function of components of the anti-tumor immune response such as T cells, or block immunologic checkpoints that would otherwise restrain effective anti-tumor immunity. This strategy is based on the evidence that development of cancer is facilitated by the dis-regulation and exploitation of otherwise physiological pathways that, under normal circumstances, down-regulate immune activation and maintain tolerance to self. Among these pathways an important role is covered by the Programmed death-1 (PD-1)/PD-Ligand (L) 1 axis. An emerging concept in cancer immunology is that inhibitory ligands such as PD-L1 are induced in response to immune attack, a mechanism termed "adaptive resistance". This potential mechanism of immune resistance by tumors suggests that therapy directed at blocking the interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1 might synergize with other treatments that enhance endogenous antitumor immunity. The anti-PD-1 strategy can be effective in several solid tumors such as renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however in this review we summarize the biological role of PD-1/PD-L1 on cancer by focusing our attention in the biological rationale, clinical challenges and opportunities to target the PD-1/PD-L1 axis in melanoma.

12 Review Cutaneous toxicities of BRAF inhibitors: clinical and pathological challenges and call to action. 2013

Mandalà, Mario / Massi, Daniela / De Giorgi, Vincenzo. ·Medical Oncology Unit, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: mariomandala@tin.it. ·Crit Rev Oncol Hematol · Pubmed #23830782.

ABSTRACT: Somatic mutations in the BRAF gene have been identified as the most frequent and relevant to develop targeted molecular therapies in melanoma. Recently, seminal clinical trials have provided indisputable evidence that BRAF inhibitors improve response rate, progression free and overall survival in BRAFV600 mutated metastatic melanoma patients, thus representing the novel standard of care. Dermatological "off target" effects of these so-called 'targeted therapies' have to be considered, however, and among them the most intriguing are cutaneous adverse reactions. Skin toxicity is of relevance for at least three reasons: (1) it worsens the patient's quality of life and may be difficult to manage, (2) its heterogeneous clinical presentation differs from the clinico-pathological pictures observed in patients who do not receive BRAF inhibitors, and; (3) onset of skin cancer represents a model of carcinogenesis which may help to better understand the potential visceral tumorigenesis induced by BRAF inhibitors. This manuscript summarizes and critically reviews the state of the art of skin toxicity associated with BRAF inhibitors. Special attention will be paid to clinical presentation and histopathological findings, as well as related challenges for clinicians, pathologists, and basic scientists.

13 Review Targeting BRAF in melanoma: biological and clinical challenges. 2013

Mandalà, Mario / Voit, Christiane. ·Unit of Medical Oncology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. mariomandala@tin.it ·Crit Rev Oncol Hematol · Pubmed #23415641.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer that causes the greatest number of skin cancer-related deaths worldwide. In its early stages malignant melanoma can be cured by surgical resection, but once it has progressed to the metastatic stage it is extremely difficult to treat and does not respond to current therapies. A majority of cutaneous melanomas show activating mutations in the NRAS or BRAF proto-oncogenes, components of the Ras-Raf-Mek-Erk (MAPK) signal transduction pathway. The discovery of activating BRAF mutations in ∼50% of all melanomas has proved to be a turning point in the therapeutic management of the disseminated disease. This review summarizes the critical role of BRAF in melanoma pathophysiology, the clinical and pathological determinants of BRAF mutation status and finally addresses the current state of the art of BRAF inhibitors. We further outline the most recent findings on the mechanisms that underlie intrinsic and acquired BRAF inhibitor resistance and describe ongoing preclinical and clinical studies designed to delay or abrogate the onset of therapeutic escape.

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

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

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

15 Clinical Trial Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. 2018

Dummer, Reinhard / Ascierto, Paolo A / Gogas, Helen J / Arance, Ana / Mandala, Mario / Liszkay, Gabriella / Garbe, Claus / Schadendorf, Dirk / Krajsova, Ivana / Gutzmer, Ralf / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Dutriaux, Caroline / de Groot, Jan Willem B / Yamazaki, Naoya / Loquai, Carmen / Moutouh-de Parseval, Laure A / Pickard, Michael D / Sandor, Victor / Robert, Caroline / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: reinhard.dummer@usz.ch. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Department of Internal Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Laikon Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tüebingen, Tüebingen, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Dermato-oncology, University Hospital Prague, Charles University First Medical Faculty, Prague, Czech Republic. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Melanoma Cancer Unit, Oncology Institute of Veneto IRCCS, Padua, Italy. · Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Isala, Zwolle, Netherlands. · Department of Dermatologic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. · Translational Clinical Oncology, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. · Array BioPharma, Boulder, CO, USA. · Service of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Paris-Sud University, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29573941.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAF METHODS: COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAF FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8-16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0-18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6-8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41-0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator. INTERPRETATION: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: Array BioPharma, Novartis.

16 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.

17 Clinical Trial Health-related quality of life impact of cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in patients with advanced or metastatic BRAF 2018

Dréno, Brigitte / Ascierto, Paolo A / Atkinson, Victoria / Liszkay, Gabriella / Maio, Michele / Mandalà, Mario / Demidov, Lev / Stroyakovskiy, Daniil / Thomas, Luc / de la Cruz-Merino, Luis / Dutriaux, Caroline / Garbe, Claus / Bartley, Karen / Karagiannis, Thomas / Chang, Ilsung / Rooney, Isabelle / Koralek, Daniel O / Larkin, James / McArthur, Grant A / Ribas, Antoni. ·Department of Dermato Cancerology, Nantes University, Nantes 44093, France. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples 80131, Italy. · Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia. · National Institute of Oncology, Budapest 1122, Hungary. · Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, Siena 53100, Italy. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo 24127, Italy. · N. N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow 115478, Russia. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital 62, Krasnogorsk 14301, Russia. · Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite 69495, France. · Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville 41009, Spain. · Hôpital Saint André, Bordeaux 33075, France. · Department of Dermatology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72074, Germany. · Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA. · The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London SW3 6JJ, UK. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia. · University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia. · Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #29438370.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In the coBRIM study, cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (C+V) significantly improved survival outcomes vs placebo and vemurafenib (P+V) in patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF METHODS: Patients completing the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline and ⩾1 time point thereafter constituted the analysis population. Change from baseline ⩾10 points was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Mean baseline scores for all QLQ-C30 domains were similar between arms. Most on-treatment scores for QLQ-C30 domains were also comparable between arms. A transient deterioration in role function in cycle 1 day 15 (C1D15; -14.7 points) in the P+V arm and improvement in insomnia in the C+V arm at C2D15 (-12.4 points) was observed. Among patients who experienced a ⩾10-point change from baseline (responders), between-group differences were greatest for insomnia (16%), social functioning (10%), fatigue (9%) and pain (7%), all favouring C+V. Diarrhoea, photosensitivity reaction, pyrexia, and rash did not meaningfully affect global health status (GHS). Serous retinopathy was associated with a transient decrease in GHS at C1D15 assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF

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

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

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

19 Clinical Trial Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III BRAF-Mutated Melanoma. 2017

Long, Georgina V / Hauschild, Axel / Santinami, Mario / Atkinson, Victoria / Mandalà, Mario / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Larkin, James / Nyakas, Marta / Dutriaux, Caroline / Haydon, Andrew / Robert, Caroline / Mortier, Laurent / Schachter, Jacob / Schadendorf, Dirk / Lesimple, Thierry / Plummer, Ruth / Ji, Ran / Zhang, Pingkuan / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Legos, Jeff / Kefford, Richard / Dummer, Reinhard / Kirkwood, John M. ·From the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals (G.V.L.), and Macquarie University, Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, and Westmead Hospital (R.K.), Sydney, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, University of Queensland, Brisbane (V.A.), and Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC (A. Haydon) - all in Australia · University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel (A. Hauschild), and University Hospital Essen, Essen, and the German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg (D.S.) - all in Germany · Fondazione Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan (M.S.), Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo (M.M.), and the Melanoma Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute, Padua (V.C.-S.) - all in Italy · Rikshospitalet-Radiumhospitalet, Oslo (M.N.) · Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux (C.D.), Institute Gustave Roussy, Paris (C.R.), Université de Lille, INSERM Unité 1189, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Lille (L.M.), and the Medical Oncology Department, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes (T.L.) - all in France · Ella Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel (J.S.) · Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London (J. Larkin), and Northern Centre for Cancer Care, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne (R.P.) - both in the United Kingdom · Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ (R.J., P.Z., B.M., J. Legos) · University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center, Zurich, Switzerland (R.D.) · and the Melanoma Program, Hillman UPMC Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (J.M.K.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #28891408.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib plus the MEK inhibitor trametinib improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. We sought to determine whether adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib would improve outcomes in patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 870 patients with completely resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive oral dabrafenib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib at a dose of 2 mg once daily (combination therapy, 438 patients) or two matched placebo tablets (432 patients) for 12 months. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, freedom from relapse, and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the estimated 3-year rate of relapse-free survival was 58% in the combination-therapy group and 39% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.58; P<0.001). The 3-year overall survival rate was 86% in the combination-therapy group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.79; P=0.0006), but this level of improvement did not cross the prespecified interim analysis boundary of P=0.000019. Rates of distant metastasis-free survival and freedom from relapse were also higher in the combination-therapy group than in the placebo group. The safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib was consistent with that observed with the combination in patients with metastatic melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant use of combination therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a significantly lower risk of recurrence in patients with stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations than the adjuvant use of placebo and was not associated with new toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01682083 ; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15 .).

20 Clinical Trial Three-year pooled analysis of factors associated with clinical outcomes across dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy phase 3 randomised trials. 2017

Schadendorf, Dirk / Long, Georgina V / Stroiakovski, Daniil / Karaszewska, Boguslawa / Hauschild, Axel / Levchenko, Evgeny / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Schachter, Jacob / Garbe, Claus / Dutriaux, Caroline / Gogas, Helen / Mandalà, Mario / Haanen, John B A G / Lebbé, Céleste / Mackiewicz, Andrzej / Rutkowski, Piotr / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Nathan, Paul / Ribas, Antoni / Davies, Michael A / Zhang, Ying / Kaper, Mathilde / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Legos, Jeffrey J / Flaherty, Keith T / Robert, Caroline. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122 Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: Dirk.Schadendorf@uk-essen.de. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia; Mater Hospital, North Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital No 62, Moscow 143423, Russia. · Przychodnia Lekarska KOMED, Wojska Polskiego 6, 62-500 Konin, Poland. · Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, 68 Leningradskaya Street, Saint Petersburg 197758, Russia. · Melanoma and Esophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Via Gattamelata 64, 35128 Padova, Italy. · Oncology Division, Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Emek HaEla St 1, Ramat Gan, Israel. · Department of Dermatology, University of Tübingen, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz, 72074 Tübingen, Germany. · Service de Dermatologie et Dermatologie Pédiatrique, Hôpital Saint-André, 1 Rue Jean Burguet, 33000 Bordeaux, France. · First Department of Medicine, "Laiko" General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens 157 72, Greece. · Department of Oncology and Hematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · APHP Dermatology and CIC Departments, INSERM U976, University Paris Diderot, Paris, France. · Department of Cancer Immunology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 15 Garbary Street, 61-866 Poznań, Poland. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Wawelska 15B, 02-034 Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Center, Timone Hospital, Aix Marseille University, 264 Rue St Pierre, 13885 Marseille Cedex 05, France. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Rickmansworth Road, HA6 2RN Northwood, UK. · Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, UCLA Medical Center, 100 UCLA Medical Plaza, Suite 550, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Melanoma Medical Oncology and Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston 77030, TX, USA. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 1 Health Plaza, East Hanover 07936, NJ, USA. · Developmental Therapeutics and Melanoma Programs, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, 55 Fruit Street, Boston 02114, MA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Dermatology Service, Gustave Roussy Comprehensive Cancer Center and Faculty of Medicine, University Paris-South, F-94805, Villejuif, France. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28648698.

ABSTRACT: AIM: Understanding predictors of long-term benefit with currently available melanoma therapies is the key for optimising individualised treatments. A prior pooled analysis of dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T)-randomised trials (median follow-up, 20.0 months) identified baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and number of organ sites with metastasis as predictive factors for progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival. However, longer-term follow-up analyses are needed to confirm which patients treated with D + T can achieve maximum benefit. METHODS: Three-year landmark data were retrospectively pooled for D + T patients in phase 3 trials (COMBI-d [NCT01584648]; COMBI-v [NCT01597908]). Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed prognostic values of predefined baseline factors; regression tree analysis determined hierarchy and interactions between variables. RESULTS: Long-term pooled outcomes were consistent with individual trial results (N = 563; 3-year PFS, 23%; 3-year OS, 44%). Baseline LDH level and number of organ sites remained strongly associated with and/or predictive of PFS and OS. In addition, baseline sum of lesion diameters (SLD) was identified as a predictor for progression. In the most favourable prognostic group (normal LDH, SLD <66 mm, <3 organ sites; n = 183/563 [33%]), 3-year PFS was 42%. Baseline number of organ sites was also predictive of outcomes in patients with PFS ≥ 6 months. CONCLUSION: Using the largest phase 3 data set available for BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy in melanoma, these results demonstrate that durable responses lasting ≥3 years are possible in subsets of patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving D + T. Although the best predictive model evolved with longer follow-up, factors predicting clinical outcomes with the combination remained consistent with previous analyses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 Clinical Trial Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2017

Dummer, Reinhard / Schadendorf, Dirk / Ascierto, Paolo A / Arance, Ana / Dutriaux, Caroline / Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Rutkowski, Piotr / Del Vecchio, Michele / Gutzmer, Ralf / Mandala, Mario / Thomas, Luc / Demidov, Lev / Garbe, Claus / Hogg, David / Liszkay, Gabriella / Queirolo, Paola / Wasserman, Ernesto / Ford, James / Weill, Marine / Sirulnik, L Andres / Jehl, Valentine / Bozón, Viviana / Long, Georgina V / Flaherty, Keith. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich Skin Cancer Center, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: reinhard.dummer@usz.ch. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. · Melanoma Unit, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapies, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Via Mariano Semmola, Naples, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux, France. · Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Viale Bracci, Siena, Italy. · Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian, Milan, Italy. · Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. · Department of Oncology and Haematology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Lyons Cancer Research Center, Lyon 1 University, Pierre Bénite, France. · N N Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russian Federation. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. · Department of Medicine, University Health Network/Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Department of Dermatology, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research, IRCCS San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi, Genova, Italy. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, One Health Plaza, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. · Array BioPharma, Boulder, CO, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28284557.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma. METHODS: NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4-4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8-3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5-1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. INTERPRETATION: Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. FUNDING: Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

24 Clinical Trial Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. 2016

Ascierto, Paolo A / McArthur, Grant A / Dréno, Brigitte / Atkinson, Victoria / Liszkay, Gabrielle / Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Mandalà, Mario / Demidov, Lev / Stroyakovskiy, Daniil / Thomas, Luc / de la Cruz-Merino, Luis / Dutriaux, Caroline / Garbe, Claus / Yan, Yibing / Wongchenko, Matthew / Chang, Ilsung / Hsu, Jessie J / Koralek, Daniel O / Rooney, Isabelle / Ribas, Antoni / Larkin, James. ·Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: grant.mcarthur@petermac.org. · Nantes University, Nantes, France. · Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia. · National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, Siena, Italy. · Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · N N Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital 62, Krasnogorsk, Russia. · Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France; Lyons Cancer Research Center, Lyon, France. · Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain. · Hôpital Saint André, Bordeaux, France. · University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. · Genentech Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA. · Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #27480103.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The combination of cobimetinib with vemurafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo and vemurafenib in previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma, as previously reported in the coBRIM study. In this Article, we report updated efficacy results, including overall survival and safety after longer follow-up, and selected biomarker correlative studies. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed BRAF(V600) mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive response system to receive cobimetinib (60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day rest period in each 28-day cycle) or placebo, in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). Progression-free and overall survival were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; all analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01689519, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants. FINDINGS: Between Jan 8, 2013, and Jan 31, 2014, 495 eligible adult patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib group (n=247) or placebo plus vemurafenib group (n=248). At a median follow-up of 14·2 months (IQR 8·5-17·3), the updated investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 7·2 months (5·6-7·5) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46-0·72], p<0·0001). The final analysis for overall survival occurred when 255 (52%) patients had died (Aug 28, 2015). Median overall survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·3-not estimable) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 17·4 months (95% CI 15·0-19·8) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·90; p=0·005). The safety profile for cobimetinib and vemurafenib was tolerable and manageable, and no new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events occurring at a higher frequency in patients in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group compared with the vemurafenib group were γ-glutamyl transferase increase (36 [15%] in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group vs 25 [10%] in the placebo and vemurafenib group), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (30 [12%] vs one [<1%]), and alanine transaminase increase (28 [11%] vs 15 [6%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 92 patients (37%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 69 patients (28%) in the vemurafenib group. Pyrexia (six patients [2%]) and dehydration (five patients [2%]) were the most common serious adverse events reported in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group. A total of 259 patients have died: 117 (47%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 142 (58%) in the vemurafenib group. The primary cause of death was disease progression in most patients: 109 (93%) of 117 in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 133 (94%) of 142 in the vemurafenib group. INTERPRETATION: These data confirm the clinical benefit of cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib and support the use of the combination as a standard first-line approach to improve survival in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

25 Clinical Trial Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. 2015

Long, Georgina V / Stroyakovskiy, Daniil / Gogas, Helen / Levchenko, Evgeny / de Braud, Filippo / Larkin, James / Garbe, Claus / Jouary, Thomas / Hauschild, Axel / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Lebbe, Celeste / Mandalà, Mario / Millward, Michael / Arance, Ana / Bondarenko, Igor / Haanen, John B A G / Hansson, Johan / Utikal, Jochen / Ferraresi, Virginia / Kovalenko, Nadezhda / Mohr, Peter / Probachai, Volodymr / Schadendorf, Dirk / Nathan, Paul / Robert, Caroline / Ribas, Antoni / DeMarini, Douglas J / Irani, Jhangir G / Swann, Suzanne / Legos, Jeffrey J / Jin, Fan / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Flaherty, Keith. ·Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Mater Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital, Moscow, Russia. · Department of Medicine, University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Russia. · Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. · Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Saint André, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. · University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. · Aix-Marseille University and APHM Hospital CHU Timone, Marseille, France. · Melanoma and Oesophageal Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute-IRCCS, Padua, Italy. · APHP Dermatology CIC Hôpital Saint Louis, University Paris Diderot, INSERM U976, Paris, France. · Papa Giovanni XXIII Cancer Center Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Hospital Avenue, Perth, WA, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic and Translational Genomics and Targeted Therapeutics in Solid Tumors, Barcelona, Spain. · Dnepropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine. · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. · University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany; German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. · Istituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena, Rome, Italy. · Volograd Regional Oncology Dispensary #3, Volzhsky, Russia. · Elbe Klinikum Stade, Stade, Germany. · Dnipropetrovsk Clinical Oncology Center of Dnipropetrovsk State Council, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. · University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK. · Gustave Roussy, Villejuif-Paris-Sud, France; Paris Sud University, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. · David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA. · Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston MA, USA. ·Lancet · Pubmed #26037941.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Previously, a study of ours showed that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib improves progression-free survival compared with dabrafenib and placebo in patients with BRAF Val600Lys/Glu mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. The study was continued to assess the secondary endpoint of overall survival, which we report in this Article. METHODS: We did this double-blind phase 3 study at 113 sites in 14 countries. We enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Participants were computer-randomised (1:1) to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily), or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and overall survival was a secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01584648. FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2012, and Nov 30, 2012, we screened 947 patients for eligibility, of whom 423 were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib and trametinib (n=211) or dabrafenib only (n=212). The final data cutoff was Jan 12, 2015, at which time 222 patients had died. Median overall survival was 25·1 months (95% CI 19·2-not reached) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 18·7 months (15·2-23·7) in the dabrafenib only group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·55-0·92; p=0·0107). Overall survival was 74% at 1 year and 51% at 2 years in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 68% and 42%, respectively, in the dabrafenib only group. Based on 301 events, median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 8·0-13·9) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 8·8 months (5·9-9·3) in the dabrafenib only group (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·53-0·84; p=0·0004; unadjusted for multiple testing). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 181 (87%) of 209 patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 189 (90%) of 211 patients in the dabrafenib only group; the most common was pyrexia (108 patients, 52%) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group, and hyperkeratosis (70 patients, 33%) in the dabrafenib only group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 67 (32%) patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 66 (31%) patients in the dabrafenib only group. INTERPRETATION: The improvement in overall survival establishes the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib as the standard targeted treatment for BRAF Val600 mutation-positive melanoma. Studies assessing dabrafenib and trametinib in combination with immunotherapies are ongoing. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Next