Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Kim A. Margolin
Based on 40 articles published since 2009
(Why 40 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, K. Margolin wrote the following 40 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Guideline The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on tumour immunotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma. 2013

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

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

2 Editorial After a treatment breakthrough-progress, plateaus, and raising the bar. 2017

Margolin, Kim A. ·Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California. ·Cancer · Pubmed #28543696.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

3 Editorial Disparate clinical activity of PD-1 blockade in melanoma subtypes: Know thy enemy! 2016

Bhatia, Shailender / Margolin, Kim. ·Department of Medicine/Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. sbhatia@uw.edu. · Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. sbhatia@uw.edu. · Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California. ·Cancer · Pubmed #27533794.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

4 Editorial Ipilimumab before BRAF inhibitor treatment may be more beneficial than vice versa for the majority of patients with advanced melanoma. 2014

Ascierto, Paolo A / Margolin, Kim. ·Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione "G. Pascale", Naples, Italy. ·Cancer · Pubmed #24577788.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

5 Editorial Melanoma's deadly march to the brain: by what route, and can it be stopped? 2011

Othus, Megan / Moon, James / Margolin, Kim. · ·Cancer · Pubmed #21472703.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

6 Review Advances in the Treatment of Advanced Extracutaneous Melanomas and Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers. 2017

Komatsubara, Kimberly M / Jeter, Joanne / Carvajal, Richard D / Margolin, Kim / Schadendorf, Dirk / Hauschild, Axel. ·From the Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH; City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. ·Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book · Pubmed #28561682.

ABSTRACT: Cutaneous malignancies make up the greatest proportion of all human cancers and include melanomas as well as nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) such as basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), as well as less common Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), cutaneous lymphomas, cutaneous adnexal tumors, Kaposi sarcomas, and other sarcomas. Each of these NMSCs differ significantly in biology, clinical behavior, and optimal treatment recommendations from each other and from cutaneous melanoma. Similarly, less common extracutaneous melanomas, such as mucosal (MMs) and uveal (UMs), are unique biologic and clinical entities that require distinct diagnostic and management considerations. In this review, we summarize recent advances in biology and treatment of extracutaneous melanomas and NMSCs, including MMs, UMs, cSCC, BCC, and MCC.

7 Review Melanoma central nervous system metastases: current approaches, challenges, and opportunities. 2016

Cohen, Justine V / Tawbi, Hussain / Margolin, Kim A / Amravadi, Ravi / Bosenberg, Marcus / Brastianos, Priscilla K / Chiang, Veronica L / de Groot, John / Glitza, Isabella C / Herlyn, Meenhard / Holmen, Sheri L / Jilaveanu, Lucia B / Lassman, Andrew / Moschos, Stergios / Postow, Michael A / Thomas, Reena / Tsiouris, John A / Wen, Patrick / White, Richard M / Turnham, Timothy / Davies, Michael A / Kluger, Harriet M. ·Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. · Department of Melanoma, Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA. · Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Division of Neuro-Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. · Division of Neuro-Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Melanoma Research Center, The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. · Department of Neurology & Herbert Irving Comprehensive, Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. · UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. · Department of Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. · Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. · Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital - Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. · Department of Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Cancer Biology & Genetics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. · Melanoma Research Foundation, Washington, DC, USA. ·Pigment Cell Melanoma Res · Pubmed #27615400.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma central nervous system metastases are increasing, and the challenges presented by this patient population remain complex. In December 2015, the Melanoma Research Foundation and the Wistar Institute hosted the First Summit on Melanoma Central Nervous System (CNS) Metastases in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Here, we provide a review of the current status of the field of melanoma brain metastasis research; identify key challenges and opportunities for improving the outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases; and set a framework to optimize future research in this critical area.

8 Review The Promise of Molecularly Targeted and Immunotherapy for Advanced Melanoma. 2016

Margolin, Kim. ·Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, 1500 E. Duarte Rd., Duarte, CA, 91010, USA. kmargolin@coh.org. ·Curr Treat Options Oncol · Pubmed #27461037.

ABSTRACT: OPINION STATEMENT: Advanced melanoma, rarely diagnosed at the time of primary melanoma excision but most often occurring later via lymphatic or hematogenous dissemination, is the cause of death for approximately 10,000 people in the USA each year, with the rate of incidence and death increasing yearly. Its causes are multifactorial and depend in large part on solar ultraviolet damage to DNA as well as underlying genetic predisposition. Cutaneous melanoma is the most common, but other subsets of importance are mucosal and uveal primaries, with different biology and treatment considerations. Mutational oncogenic "drivers" may be targeted with chronically administered, oral kinase inhibitors, currently consisting of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitor combinations of BRAF plus MEK-targeted drugs. These agents work quickly to relieve symptoms and induce remissions but generally have limited durations of disease control. Immunotherapies include the immune checkpoint inhibitors that block CTLA4 or PD-1-negative immune signaling as well as interleukin-2, a cytokine that stimulates T lymphocytes and natural killer cells. A combination of CTLA4 plus PD-1 blockade has the highest activity ever reported for metastatic melanoma, at the cost of high autoimmune-like toxicities. However, immunotherapies of this type may provide durable responses and even cure a subset of patients. Thus, these immunotherapeutic agents are recommended as first-line therapy for most patients with advanced melanoma. Patients with rapidly progressive, symptomatic melanoma whose tumor carries a BRAF mutation may benefit more from initial therapy with combined MAPK inhibitors.

9 Review Immune checkpoint blockade in patients with melanoma metastatic to the brain. 2015

Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Margolin, Kim. ·Division of Medical Oncology and Immunotherapy, University Hospital of Siena, Siena, Italy. Electronic address: a.m.digiacomo@ao-siena.toscana.it. · Division of Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA. ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #25965364.

ABSTRACT: Metastatic disease to the brain is a frequent manifestation of melanoma and is associated with a very poor outcome. Systemic therapy with cytotoxic chemotherapy provide only a minimal benefit, while surgery and radiotherapy provide in some patients local control but they less frequently affect the overall outcome of melanoma brain metastases (MBM). The advent of active systemic drugs has revolutioned the care of metastatic melanoma, but this benefit has not been translated into intracranial activity. However, since 2010 the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab and the BRAF inhibitors, dabrafenib and vemurafenib, have demonstrated initial signs of efficacy in active brain metastases. This chapter reviews the available data and rationale for ongoing and future trials of immune checkpoint-based combination therapy.

10 Review Introduction to the role of the immune system in melanoma. 2014

Margolin, Kim. ·Medical Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington, 825 Eastlake Avenue E, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. Electronic address: kmargoli@seattlecca.org. ·Hematol Oncol Clin North Am · Pubmed #24880946.

ABSTRACT: The concept of immunosurveillance of cancer has been widely accepted for many years, but only recently have the precise mechanisms of tumor-host immune interactions been revealed. Inflammatory and immune reactions play a role in melanomagenesis, and may contribute to the eradication of tumor as well as potentiating its growth and proliferation. Studies of the role of tumor-immune system interactions are providing insights into the pathogenesis and opportunities for highly effective therapeutic strategies. Some patients, even with advanced disease, are now cured with immunotherapy, and increasing numbers of such cures are likely in future.

11 Review Multidisciplinary approach to brain metastasis from melanoma; local therapies for central nervous system metastases. 2013

Ramakrishna, Naren / Margolin, Kim A. ·From the MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando FL; University of Washington Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. ·Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book · Pubmed #23714560.

ABSTRACT: The overall treatment paradigm for melanoma brain metastases continues to evolve and reflects the relative radioresistance of this histology, as well as the effect of emerging systemic therapies with central nervous system (CNS) activity. Local therapies, including surgery, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), play an important role in the multidisciplinary management of melanoma brain metastases. Treatment selection for local therapies must consider many factors: (1) size, number, and location of lesions, (2) presence or absence of neurological symptoms, (3) extracranial disease status, expected survival, age, and performance status, (4) prior treatment history, (5) expected treatment toxicities, and (6) predicted response to systemic therapies. The choice of treatment modalities for brain metastases is among the most controversial areas in oncology. There has been a trend toward reduced use of WBRT and increased reliance on SRS and surgery for melanoma brain metastases. Although no prospective randomized data exist comparing local therapies for melanoma brain metastases, several large retrospective studies suggest aggressive local treatment with modalities including surgery and SRS are associated with favorable outcomes in select patients. Multidisciplinary collaboration is required to facilitate a treatment plan that balances reduction in risk of neurological death and symptomatic progression against the risk of treatment-related toxicity.

12 Review Multidisciplinary approach to brain metastasis from melanoma: the emerging role of systemic therapies. 2013

Long, Georgina V / Margolin, Kim A. ·From the Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; University of Washington/Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. ·Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book · Pubmed #23714558.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma brain metastases are common, difficult to treat, and carry a poor prognosis. Until recently, systemic therapy was ineffective. Local therapy (including surgery, stereotactic radiotherapy, and whole brain radiotherapy) was considered the only option for a chance of disease control in the brain, and was highly dependent on the patient's performance status and age, number and size of brain metastases, and the presence of extracranial metastases. Since 2010, three drugs have demonstrated activity in progressing or "active" brain metastases including the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab (phase II study of 72 patients), and the BRAF inhibitors dabrafenib (phase II study of 172 patients, both previously treated and untreated brain metastases) and vemurafenib (a pilot study of 24 patients with heavily pretreated brain metastases). The challenge and unanswered question for clinicians is how to sequence all the available therapies, both local and systemic, to optimize the patient's quality of life and survival. This is an area of intense clinical research. The treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastases should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team of melanoma experts including a neurosurgeon, medical oncologist, and radiation oncologist. Important clinical features that help determine appropriate first line therapy include single compared with solitary brain metastasis, resectablity, BRAF mutation status of melanoma, rate of progression/performance status, and the presence of extracranial disease.

13 Review Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in melanoma. 2012

Lee, Sylvia / Margolin, Kim. ·Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. smlee@fhcrc.org ·Curr Oncol Rep · Pubmed #22878966.

ABSTRACT: Adoptive cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) is arguably the most effective treatment for patients with metastatic melanoma. With higher response rates than ipilimumab or IL-2, and longer durations of response than vemurafenib, TIL therapy carries the potential to transform current outcomes in melanoma, while also defining the way cell-based immunotherapy gets incorporated into mainstream cancer treatment. This paper will review the current state of TIL therapy in melanoma, the strategies to improve its efficacy, the current obstacles, and future directions to expand the availability of TIL to the general patient population.

14 Review Brain metastasis in melanoma: clinical activity of CTLA-4 antibody therapy. 2010

Margolin, Kim A / Di Giacomo, Anna Maria / Maio, Michele. ·Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA 98109-1023, USA. kmargoli@seattlecca.org ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #21074062.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma metastasizes frequently to the brain, and brain metastases generally drive the prognosis of melanoma patients. Surgical and radiation therapy improve the outcome of selected melanoma patients with brain metastasis, while systemic treatment using cytotoxic agents still plays a limited role. Temozolomide and fotemustine are preferentially used in melanoma patients with brain metastases in the United States and in Europe, respectively, with modest clinical activity. However, the results obtained with either agent are still limited, and efforts are needed to improve the outcome of these patients who are generally excluded from clinical trials. Among therapeutic agents in development, antibodies that block the interaction of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA-4) with its ligands B7.1 and B7.2 and thus enhance antitumor immune responses have shown clinical benefit in patients with metastatic melanoma, including durable control of brain metastases. This chapter reviews the current data and the rationale for ongoing and future trials of combination cytotoxic plus immunomodulatory therapy by US and Italian multicenter trial groups.

15 Review Inside life of melanoma cell signaling, molecular insights, and therapeutic targets. 2009

Sosman, Jeffrey A / Margolin, Kim A. ·Division of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 777 Preston Research Building, 2220 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. Jeff.sosman@vanderbilt.edu ·Curr Oncol Rep · Pubmed #19679016.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma is one of the fastest growing tumor types in the United States. Immunotherapy and chemotherapy benefit only a few patients with metastatic disease. Therapy targeting a signaling pathway critical to the cancer's growth can provide dramatic benefit in several other malignancies and may be a valuable strategy for advanced melanoma, if drugs with a favorable therapeutic index are effective against essential molecular pathways. One such target is the V600E "gain-of-function" BRAF mutation found in 60% of melanomas; other mutations or molecular alterations cooperate with V600E BRAF, particularly those that cause loss of function of PTEN, upstream of Akt and mammalian target of rapamycin. Rapid development of new agents, a better understanding of the target pathways and mechanisms of resistance, and carefully designed strategies to optimize combinations and sequences of these agents, potentially with chemotherapy or immunotherapy, may ultimately have the potential to overcome the previously insurmountable obstacle of therapy resistance in melanoma.

16 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 .).

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

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

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

18 Clinical Trial Immune Correlates of GM-CSF and Melanoma Peptide Vaccination in a Randomized Trial for the Adjuvant Therapy of Resected High-Risk Melanoma (E4697). 2017

Butterfield, Lisa H / Zhao, Fengmin / Lee, Sandra / Tarhini, Ahmad A / Margolin, Kim A / White, Richard L / Atkins, Michael B / Cohen, Gary I / Whiteside, Theresa L / Kirkwood, John M / Lawson, David H. ·University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. butterfieldl@upmc.edu. · Dana Farber Cancer Institute - ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. · Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, North Carolina. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland. · Winship Cancer institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #28536308.

ABSTRACT:

19 Clinical Trial A phase 2 trial of dasatinib in patients with locally advanced or stage IV mucosal, acral, or vulvovaginal melanoma: A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E2607). 2017

Kalinsky, Kevin / Lee, Sandra / Rubin, Krista M / Lawrence, Donald P / Iafrarte, Anthony J / Borger, Darell R / Margolin, Kim A / Leitao, Mario M / Tarhini, Ahmad A / Koon, Henry B / Pecora, Andrew L / Jaslowski, Anthony J / Cohen, Gary I / Kuzel, Timothy M / Lao, Christopher D / Kirkwood, John M. ·Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · City of Hope, Duarte, California. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer, New York, New York. · University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. · Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. · Hackensack Medical Center, Hackensack, New Jersey. · Saint Vincent Hospital, Green Bay, Wisconsin. · Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland. · Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. · University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center. ·Cancer · Pubmed #28334439.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: KIT-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib have demonstrated benefits in KIT-mutant (KIT+) mucosal, acral, vulvovaginal, and chronically sun-damaged (CSD) melanoma. Dasatinib has superior preclinical activity in comparison with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors against cells with the most common KIT mutation, exon 11 METHODS: Patients received 70 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily. The primary objective for this 2-stage phase 2 trial was response rate. Stage I was open to KIT+ and wild-type KIT (KIT-) mucosal, acral, and CSD melanoma (n = 57). Stage II accrued only KIT+ tumors (n = 30). To enrich the trial for KIT+ tumors, vulvovaginal melanoma was added, and CSD melanoma was removed from eligibility. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: From May 2009 to December 2010, the first stage enrolled 57 patients. Among the evaluable patients, 3 of 51 (5.9%) achieved a partial response: all were KIT-. Stage II closed early because of slow accrual (November 2011 to December 2015). In stage II, 4 of 22 evaluable patients (18.2%) had a partial response; the median duration was 4.2 months. The median PFS was 2.1 months (n = 73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.9 months). The median OS was 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.0-11.9 months). In exploratory analyses, no differences were seen in PFS or OS with the KIT status or subtype. Dasatinib was discontinued because of adverse events in 9 of 75 patients (12%). CONCLUSIONS: The dasatinib response rate among KIT+ melanoma patients was low. In view of its clinical activity, it is recommended that imatinib remain the KIT tyrosine kinase inhibitor of choice for unresectable KIT+ melanoma. Cancer 2017;123:2688-97. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

20 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with brain metastases: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2, multicentre study. 2017

McArthur, G A / Maio, M / Arance, A / Nathan, P / Blank, C / Avril, M-F / Garbe, C / Hauschild, A / Schadendorf, D / Hamid, O / Fluck, M / Thebeau, M / Schachter, J / Kefford, R / Chamberlain, M / Makrutzki, M / Robson, S / Gonzalez, R / Margolin, K. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. · AOU Senese Policlinico Santa Maria Alle Scotte, Siena, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Spain. · Mount Vernon Hospital, Centre for Cancer Treatment, Northwood, UK. · The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · University Paris Descartes, Hospital Cochin, APHP, Paris, France. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Kiel. · Department of Dermatology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, USA. · Fachklinik Hornheide, Munster, Germany. · Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, USA. · Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Oncology Institute, Ramat-Gan, Israel. · Crown Princess Cancer Centre Westmead Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW, Australia. · Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, USA. · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. · University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora. · City of Hope, Duarte, USA. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #27993793.

ABSTRACT: Background: Vemurafenib has shown activity in patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with brain metastases (BM). This phase 2 study evaluated vemurafenib in patients with/without prior treatment for BM. Methods: Patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma with BM were enrolled into cohort 1 (previously untreated BM) and cohort 2 (previously treated BM) and received vemurafenib (960 mg BID) until disease progression (PD) or intolerance. Primary endpoint was best overall response rate (BORR) in the brain in cohort 1 that was evaluated using modified RECIST 1.1 criteria using lesions ≥0.5 cm to assess response. Results: 146 patients were treated (cohort 1 n = 90; cohort 2 n = 56), 62% of whom were male. Median (range) time since diagnosis of BM: 1.0 (0-9) month in cohort 1 and 4.2 (1-68) months in cohort 2. Median duration of treatment was 4.1 months (range 0.3-34.5) in cohort 1 and 4.1 months (range 0.2-27.6) in cohort 2. Intracranial BORR in cohort 1 by an independent review committee (IRC) was 18% (2 CRs, 14 PRs). Extracranial BORR by IRC was 33% in cohort 1 and 23% in cohort 2. Median PFS (brain only, investigator-assessed) was 3.7 months (range 0.03-33.4; IQR 1.9-5.6) in cohort 1 and 4.0 months (range 0.3-27.4; IQR 2.2-7.4) in cohort 2. Median OS was 8.9 months (range 0.6-34.5; IQR 4.9-17.0) in cohort 1 and 9.6 months (range 0.7-34.3; IQR 4.5-18.4) in cohort 2. Adverse events (AEs) were similar in type, grade and frequency to other studies of single-agent vemurafenib. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 59 (66%) patients in cohort 1 and 36 (64%) in cohort 2. Overall, 84% of patients died during the study (86% in cohort 1 and 80% in cohort 2), mainly due to disease progression. Conclusions: The study demonstrates clinically meaningful response rates of melanoma BM to vemurafenib, which was well tolerated and without significant CNS toxicity.

21 Clinical Trial Combined IL-21-primed polyclonal CTL plus CTLA4 blockade controls refractory metastatic melanoma in a patient. 2016

Chapuis, Aude G / Lee, Sylvia M / Thompson, John A / Roberts, Ilana M / Margolin, Kim A / Bhatia, Shailender / Sloan, Heather L / Lai, Ivy / Wagener, Felecia / Shibuya, Kendall / Cao, Jianhong / Wolchok, Jedd D / Greenberg, Philip D / Yee, Cassian. ·Program in Immunology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC), Seattle, WA 98109. · Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center/FHCRC/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA 98109. · Ludwig Center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 100165. · Program in Immunology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC), Seattle, WA 98109 Department of Immunology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195 cyee@mdanderson.org pgreen@u.washington.edu. · Program in Immunology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC), Seattle, WA 98109 cyee@mdanderson.org pgreen@u.washington.edu. ·J Exp Med · Pubmed #27242164.

ABSTRACT: Adoptive transfer of peripheral blood-derived, melanoma-reactive CD8(+) cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) alone is generally insufficient to eliminate bulky tumors. Similarly, monotherapy with anti-CTLA4 infrequently yields sustained remissions in patients with metastatic melanoma. We postulated that a bolus of enhanced IL-21-primed polyclonal antigen-specific CTL combined with CTLA4 blockade might boost antitumor efficacy. In this first-in-human case study, the combination successfully led to a durable complete remission (CR) in a patient whose disease was refractory to both monoclonal CTL and anti-CTLA4. Long-term persistence and sustained anti-tumor activity of transferred CTL, as well as responses to nontargeted antigens, confirmed mutually beneficial effects of the combined treatment. In this first-in-human study, Chapuis et al. demonstrate that the combination of adoptive cellular therapy with CTLA4 blockade induces long-term remission in a melanoma patient resistant to both modalities administered serially and individually.

22 Clinical Trial Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Yeast-Derived Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor (GM-CSF) Versus Peptide Vaccination Versus GM-CSF Plus Peptide Vaccination Versus Placebo in Patients With No Evidence of Disease After Complete Surgical Resection of Locally Advanced and/or Stage IV Melanoma: A Trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group (E4697). 2015

Lawson, David H / Lee, Sandra / Zhao, Fengmin / Tarhini, Ahmad A / Margolin, Kim A / Ernstoff, Marc S / Atkins, Michael B / Cohen, Gary I / Whiteside, Theresa L / Butterfield, Lisa H / Kirkwood, John M. ·David H. Lawson, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA · Sandra Lee and Fengmin Zhao, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · Michael B. Atkins, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA · Ahmad A. Tarhini, Theresa L. Whiteside, Lisa H. Butterfield, and John M. Kirkwood, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA · Kim A. Margolin, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA · Marc S. Ernstoff, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH · and Gary I. Cohen, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, MD. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #26351350.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effect of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and peptide vaccination (PV) on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with resected high-risk melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with completely resected stage IV or high-risk stage III melanoma were grouped by human leukocyte antigen (HLA) -A2 status. HLA-A2-positive patients were randomly assigned to receive GM-CSF, PV, both, or placebo; HLA-A2-negative patients, GM-CSF or placebo. Treatment lasted for 1 year or until recurrence. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 815 patients were enrolled. There were no significant improvements in OS (stratified log-rank P = .528; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% repeated CI, 0.77 to 1.15) or RFS (P = .131; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.04) in the patients assigned to GM-CSF (n = 408) versus those assigned to placebo (n = 407). The median OS times with GM-CSF versus placebo treatments were 69.6 months (95% CI, 53.4 to 83.5 months) versus 59.3 months (95% CI, 44.4 to 77.3 months); the 5-year OS probability rates were 52.3% (95% CI, 47.3% to 57.1%) versus 49.4% (95% CI, 44.3% to 54.3%), respectively. The median RFS times with GM-CSF versus placebo were 11.4 months (95% CI, 9.4 to 14.8 months) versus 8.8 months (95% CI, 7.5 to 11.2 months); the 5-year RFS probability rates were 31.2% (95% CI, 26.7% to 35.9%) versus 27.0% (95% CI, 22.7% to 31.5%), respectively. Exploratory analyses showed a trend toward improved OS in GM-CSF-treated patients with resected visceral metastases. When survival in HLA-A2-positive patients who received PV versus placebo was compared, RFS and OS were not significantly different. Treatment-related grade 3 or greater adverse events were similar between GM-CSF and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: Neither adjuvant GM-CSF nor PV significantly improved RFS or OS in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Exploratory analyses suggest that GM-CSF may be beneficial in patients with resected visceral metastases; this observation requires prospective validation.

23 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.

24 Clinical Trial Phase 2 study of RO4929097, a gamma-secretase inhibitor, in metastatic melanoma: SWOG 0933. 2015

Lee, Sylvia M / Moon, James / Redman, Bruce G / Chidiac, Tarek / Flaherty, Lawrence E / Zha, Yuanyuan / Othus, Megan / Ribas, Antoni / Sondak, Vernon K / Gajewski, Thomas F / Margolin, Kim A. ·Seattle Cancer Care Alliance/University of Washington, Seattle, WA. · SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA. · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. · Columbus CCOP/Mid-Ohio Onc/Hem Inc, Columbus, OH. · Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI. · University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. · UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL. ·Cancer · Pubmed #25250858.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Aberrant Notch activation confers a proliferative advantage to many human tumors, including melanoma. This phase 2 trial assessed the antitumor activity of RO4929097, a gamma-secretase inhibitor of Notch signaling, with respect to the progression-free and overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic melanoma of cutaneous or unknown origin were treated orally with RO4929097 at a dose of 20 mg daily 3 consecutive days per week. A 2-step accrual design was used with an interim analysis of the first 32 patients and with continuation of enrollment if 4 or more of the 32 patients responded. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients from 23 institutions were enrolled; 32 patients were evaluable. RO4929097 was well tolerated, and most toxicities were grade 1 or 2. The most common toxicities were nausea (53%), fatigue (41%), and anemia (22%). There was 1 confirmed partial response lasting 7 months, and there were 8 patients with stable disease lasting at least through week 12, with 1 of these continuing for 31 months. The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-22%), and the 1-year overall survival rate was 50% (95% CI, 32%-66%). Peripheral blood T-cell assays showed no significant inhibition of the production of interleukin-2, a surrogate pharmacodynamic marker of Notch inhibition, and this suggested that the drug levels were insufficient to achieve Notch target inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: RO4929097 showed minimal clinical activity against metastatic melanoma in this phase 2 trial, possibly because of inadequate exposure to therapeutic drug levels. Although Notch inhibition remains a compelling target in melanoma, the results do not support further investigation of RO4929097 with this dose and schedule.

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

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

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

Next