Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Igor Puzanov
Based on 59 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, I. Puzanov wrote the following 59 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3
1 Editorial New Does Not Always Mean Better: Isolated Limb Perfusion Still Has a Role in the Management of In-Transit Melanoma Metastases. 2016

Puzanov, Igor / Skitzki, Joseph. · ·Oncology (Williston Park) · Pubmed #27987195.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

2 Review Clinical development of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC): a modified herpes simplex virus type-1-derived oncolytic immunotherapy. 2015

Harrington, Kevin J / Puzanov, Igor / Hecht, J Randolph / Hodi, F Stephen / Szabo, Zsolt / Murugappan, Swami / Kaufman, Howard L. ·a Division of Hematology-Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville , TN , USA. · b David Geffen School of Medicine , UCLA , Los Angeles , CA , USA. · c Melanoma Center and the Center for Immuno-Oncology , Dana-Farber Cancer Institute , Boston , MA , USA. · d Department of Oncology , Amgen (Europe) GmbH , Zug , Switzerland. · e Department of Oncology , Amgen Inc ., Thousand Oaks , CA , USA. · f Division of Surgical Oncology , Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey , New Brunswick , NJ , USA. ·Expert Rev Anticancer Ther · Pubmed #26558498.

ABSTRACT: Tumor immunotherapy is emerging as a promising new treatment option for patients with cancer. T-VEC is an intralesional oncolytic virus therapy based on a modified herpes simplex virus type-1. T-VEC selectively targets tumor cells, causing regression in injected lesions and inducing immunologic responses that mediate regression at uninjected/distant sites. In a randomized phase III trial, T-VEC met its primary endpoint of improving the durable response rate vs granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in patients with unresectable melanoma. Responses were observed in injected and uninjected regional and visceral lesions. Exploratory analyses suggested survival differences in favor of T-VEC in patients with untreated or stage IIIB/IIIC/IVM1a disease. T-VEC was generally well tolerated, the most common adverse events being flu-like symptoms. Here, we overview recent advances in cancer immunotherapy, focusing on the clinical development of T-VEC, from first-in-human studies and studies in other cancer types, to ongoing combination trials with checkpoint inhibitors.

3 Review Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) for the treatment of advanced melanoma. 2015

Johnson, Douglas B / Puzanov, Igor / Kelley, Mark C. ·Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 777 PRB, 2220 Pierce Ave, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. · Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, TN, USA. ·Immunotherapy · Pubmed #26098919.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma often spreads to cutaneous or subcutaneous sites that are amenable to direct, intralesional injection. As such, developing effective injectable agents has been of considerable interest. Talimogene laherperepvec (T-VEC) is an injectable modified oncolytic herpes virus being developed for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Pre-clinical studies have shown that T-VEC preferentially infects melanoma cells and exerts antitumor activity through directly mediating cell death and by augmenting local and even distant immune responses. T-VEC has now been assessed in Phase II and III clinical trials and has demonstrated a tolerable side-effect profile and promising efficacy, showing an improved durable response rate and a trend toward superior overall survival compared to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Despite these promising results, responses have been uncommon in patients with visceral metastases. T-VEC is currently being evaluated in combination with other immune therapies (ipilimumab and pembrolizumab) with early signs of activity. In this review, we discuss the preclinical rationale, the clinical experience, and future directions for T-VEC in advanced melanoma.

4 Review Treatment of NRAS-mutant melanoma. 2015

Johnson, Douglas B / Puzanov, Igor. ·Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 777 Preston Research Building, 2220 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA, douglas.b.johnson@vanderbilt.edu. ·Curr Treat Options Oncol · Pubmed #25796376.

ABSTRACT: NRAS mutations in codons 12, 13, and 61 arise in 15-20 % of all melanomas. These alterations have been associated with aggressive clinical behavior and a poor prognosis. Until recently, there has been a paucity of promising genetically targeted therapy approaches for NRAS-mutant melanoma (and RAS-mutant malignancies in general). MEK inhibitors, particularly binimetinib, have shown activity in this cohort. Based on pre-clinical and early clinical studies, combining MEK inhibitors with agents inhibiting the cell cycling and the PI3K-AKT pathway appears to provide additional benefit. In particular, a strategy of MEK inhibition and CDK4/6 inhibition is likely to be a viable treatment option in the future, and is the most promising genetically targeted treatment strategy for NRAS-mutant melanoma developed to date. In addition, immune-based therapies have shown increasing activity in advanced melanoma and may be particularly effective in those with NRAS mutations. Combination strategies of immune and targeted therapies may also play a role in the future although clinical trials testing these approaches are in early stages.

5 Review [BRAF mutation: a novel approach in targeted melanoma therapy]. 2012

Arenbergerová, M / Puzanov, I. ·Dermatovenerologicka klinika, Praha. ma@avemedica.cz ·Klin Onkol · Pubmed #23102192.

ABSTRACT: The incidence of malignant melanoma is increasing worldwide, despite our best efforts in prevention and early detection. The locally advanced disease may be treated surgically with good results, however, metastatic melanoma is considered to be one of the most therapeutically challenging malignancies. The increasing knowledge of molecular changes in melanoma may change this picture. Malignant melanoma is not a singular, homogeneous disease but rather a mixture of subtypes characterized by specific mutations. Tumors with C-KIT mutation respond to therapy with C-KIT kinase inhibitor imatinib and the ones characterized by BRAF mutations respond to BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib. Vemurafenib was approved by US FDA in 2011 and EMA in 2012 for therapy of patients with advanced melanoma, harboring mutation in BRAFV600E gene. Ipilimumab, an antibody to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), was registered in 2011 by both US FDA and European Medicines Agency for treatment of metastatic melanoma. This therapy promotes the anti-tumor T-cell activity by blocking a CTLA-4 antigen, a key negative regulator of immune response.

6 Review Biological challenges of BRAF inhibitor therapy. 2011

Puzanov, Igor / Burnett, Patrick / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. ·Mol Oncol · Pubmed #21393075.

ABSTRACT: Activating mutations in BRAF, a constituent of the map kinase pathway, were first discovered as being most prevalent in melanoma in 2002. Only recently have potent and selective, orally available inhibitors of BRAF emerged for clinical testing and demonstrated clear evidence of tumor regression in the majority of patients whose tumors harbor a BRAF mutation. While these early observations suggest that the BRAF targeted therapy will become part of the standard treatment paradigm for patients with advanced melanoma, it is also clear that a majority of these responses are incomplete and temporary. Therefore, the focus of the melanoma field has shifted to understanding the limits of the first generation of selective BRAF inhibitors with regard to safety and efficacy, the context of somatic genetic changes that accompany BRAF, and the combination regimens that target distinct elements of melanoma pathophysiology.

7 Review Targeted molecular therapy in melanoma. 2010

Puzanov, Igor / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. ·Semin Cutan Med Surg · Pubmed #21051014.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy and chemotherapy benefit few patients with metastatic melanoma, and even fewer experience durable survival benefit. These poor results may come from treating all melanomas as though they are biologically homogeneous. Recently, it has been shown that targeting specific activated tyrosine kinases (oncogenes) can have striking clinical benefits in patients with melanoma. In 2002, a V600E mutation of the BRAF serine/threonine kinase was described as present in more than 50% of all melanomas. The mutation appeared to confer a dependency by the melanoma cancer cell on activated signaling through mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway. The frequency and focality of this mutation (>95% of all BRAF mutations being at V600 position) suggested its importance in melanoma pathophysiology and potential as a target for therapy. The recent results of a phase 1 study with PLX4032/RG7204, a small molecule RAF inhibitor, confirm this hypothesis. Mucosal and acral-lentiginous melanomas, comprising 3% of all melanomas, frequently harbor activating mutations of c-kit and drugs targeting this mutation seem to confer similar benefits for these types of tumors. Here we provide an overview of the targeted therapy development in melanoma with emphasis on BRAF inhibition because of its prevalence and possibility of transforming the care of many melanoma patients.

8 Review B-RAF inhibitors: an evolving role in the therapy of malignant melanoma. 2010

Shepherd, Cynthia / Puzanov, Igor / Sosman, Jeffrey A. ·Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Drive, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. cynthia.shepherd@vanderbilt.edu ·Curr Oncol Rep · Pubmed #20425073.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy and chemotherapy benefit few patients with metastatic melanoma, and even fewer experience durable survival benefit. These poor results come from treating melanoma as a single homogeneous disease. Recently, it has been shown that targeting activated tyrosine kinases (oncogenes) can mediate striking clinical benefits in several cancers. In 2002, a mutation at the V600E amino acid of the BRAF serine/threonine kinase was described as present in over 50% of melanomas. The mutation appeared to confer a dependency by the melanoma cancer cell on its activation of the MAP kinase pathway. The frequency and specificity of this mutation (95% at V600E of BRAF) suggests that it may be a potential target for therapy, and recent results with one inhibitor, PLX4032/RG7204, bare this out. This review updates the status of BRAF inhibitors in melanoma and what may be on the horizon.

9 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 .).

10 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib treatment for patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage IIIC or metastatic melanoma and activating exon 15 BRAF mutations other than V600E. 2017

Hallmeyer, Sigrun / Gonzalez, Rene / Lawson, David H / Cranmer, Lee D / Linette, Gerald P / Puzanov, Igor / Taback, Bret / Cowey, C Lance / Ribas, Antoni / Daniels, Gregory A / Moore, Timothy / Gibney, Geoffrey T / Tawbi, Hussein / Whitman, Eric / Lee, Geraldine / Mun, Yong / Liu, Shiyao / Hamid, Omid. ·aDepartment of Internal Medicine, Advocate Medical Group - Oncology North, Park Ridge, Illinois bMelanoma Research Clinic, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado cDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia dDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, The University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona eDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri fDepartment of Hematology-Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee gDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York hDepartment of Medical Oncology, Texas Oncology, Dallas, Texas iDepartment of Medicine, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of California jDepartment of Immuno-Oncology, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles kDepartment of Oncology, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla lGenentech Inc., South San Francisco, California mMid Ohio Oncology and Hematology Inc., Columbus, Ohio nDepartment of Melanoma, Georgetown-Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC oDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania pDepartment of Melanoma, Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health System, Morristown, New Jersey, USA. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #29076950.

ABSTRACT: BRAF mutations are found in ~50% of metastatic melanomas, most commonly in codon V600. Vemurafenib improves progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. The results of a descriptive study evaluating vemurafenib in patients with advanced melanoma harbouring BRAF mutations other than V600E are reported. Eligible patients with stage IIIC or IV melanoma and non-V600E BRAF mutations received vemurafenib (960 mg, twice daily). End points included investigator-assessed best overall response rate (primary), time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. Planned (V600K vs. non-V600K mutations) subgroup analyses were carried out. Thirty-one patients were enrolled; 13 (42%) had V600K mutations and 18 (58%) had other mutations. Investigator-assessed confirmed that the best overall response rate was 23% (95% confidence interval=10-41%) in the overall population, and was similar between patients with V600K mutations (23%; 95% confidence interval=5-54%) versus other mutations (22%; 95% confidence interval=6-48%). Responses were observed in patients with V600K (n=3), V600E2 (n=1), V600R (n=1), L597S (n=1) and D594G (n=1) mutations. No new safety signals were reported. Vemurafenib showed activity in patients with advanced melanoma with rarer BRAF mutations.

11 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.

12 Clinical Trial Durable response rate as an endpoint in cancer immunotherapy: insights from oncolytic virus clinical trials. 2017

Kaufman, Howard L / Andtbacka, Robert H I / Collichio, Frances A / Wolf, Michael / Zhao, Zhongyun / Shilkrut, Mark / Puzanov, Igor / Ross, Merrick. ·Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA. howard.kaufman@rutgers.edu. · Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, 1950 Circle of Hope Drive, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. · The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 170 Manning Drive, Box 7305, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. · Amgen Inc., One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320, USA. · Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY, 14263, USA. · MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. ·J Immunother Cancer · Pubmed #28923101.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Traditional response criteria may be insufficient to characterize full clinical benefits of anticancer immunotherapies. Consequently, endpoints such as durable response rate (DRR; a continuous response [complete or partial objective response] beginning within 12 months of treatment and lasting ≥6 months) have been employed. There has not, however, been validation that DRR correlates with other more traditional endpoints of clinical benefit such as overall survival. METHODS: We evaluated whether DRR was associated with clinically meaningful measures of benefit (eg, overall survival [OS], quality of life [QoL], or treatment-free interval [TFI]) in a phase 3 clinical trial of an oncolytic virus for melanoma treatment. To evaluate the association between DRR and OS and to mitigate lead time bias, landmark analyses were used. QoL was evaluated using the FACT-BRM questionnaire (comprising the FACT-BRM Physical, Social/Family, Emotional, and Functional well-being domains, the Additional Concerns, Physical and Mental treatment-specific subscales, and the Trial Outcome Index [TOI]). TFI was defined as time from the last study therapy dose to first subsequent therapy dose (including any systemic anticancer therapy for melanoma after study therapy discontinuation). RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-six patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Achieving DR was associated with a statistically significant improvement in OS in a landmark analysis at 9 months (HR = 0.07; P = 0.0003), 12 months (HR = 0.05, P < 0.0001), and 18 months (HR = 0.11; P = 0.0002) that persisted after adjusting for disease stage and line of therapy. Achieving a DR was associated with a longer median TFI (HR = 0.33; P = 0.0007) and a higher TOI improvement rate (58.1% versus 30.0%; P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Achieving a DR was associated with clinical benefits such as improved OS and QoL and prolonged TFI, thus supporting the usefulness of DR as a meaningful immunotherapy clinical trial endpoint. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00769704 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00769704 ) October 7, 2008.

13 Clinical Trial Oncolytic Virotherapy Promotes Intratumoral T Cell Infiltration and Improves Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy. 2017

Ribas, Antoni / Dummer, Reinhard / Puzanov, Igor / VanderWalde, Ari / Andtbacka, Robert H I / Michielin, Olivier / Olszanski, Anthony J / Malvehy, Josep / Cebon, Jonathan / Fernandez, Eugenio / Kirkwood, John M / Gajewski, Thomas F / Chen, Lisa / Gorski, Kevin S / Anderson, Abraham A / Diede, Scott J / Lassman, Michael E / Gansert, Jennifer / Hodi, F Stephen / Long, Georgina V. ·University of California at Los Angeles, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. · University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. · Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. · The West Clinic, Memphis, TN, USA. · University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. · Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland. · Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Hospital Clinic i Provincial de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Health, School of Cancer Medicine, LaTrobe University, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. · Hopitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland. · University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Hillman UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. · The University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. · Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. · Amgen Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA. · Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, NSW, Australia. ·Cell · Pubmed #28886381.

ABSTRACT: Here we report a phase 1b clinical trial testing the impact of oncolytic virotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec on cytotoxic T cell infiltration and therapeutic efficacy of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab. Twenty-one patients with advanced melanoma were treated with talimogene laherparepvec followed by combination therapy with pembrolizumab. Therapy was generally well tolerated, with fatigue, fevers, and chills as the most common adverse events. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred. Confirmed objective response rate was 62%, with a complete response rate of 33% per immune-related response criteria. Patients who responded to combination therapy had increased CD8

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

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

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

15 Clinical Trial Health-related quality of life in the randomised KEYNOTE-002 study of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. 2016

Schadendorf, Dirk / Dummer, Reinhard / Hauschild, Axel / Robert, Caroline / Hamid, Omid / Daud, Adil / van den Eertwegh, Alfons / Cranmer, Lee / O'Day, Steven / Puzanov, Igor / Schachter, Jacob / Blank, Christian / Salama, April / Loquai, Carmen / Mehnert, Janice M / Hille, Darcy / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Kang, S Peter / Zhou, Wei / Ribas, Antoni. ·University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, D-45147 Essen, Germany. Electronic address: dirk.schadendorf@uk-essen.de. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zurich, Gloriastrasse 31, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: Reinhard.Dummer@usz.ch. · Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Allergology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel Campus, Arnold-Heller Strasse 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany. Electronic address: ahauschild@dermatology.uni-kiel.de. · Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus and Paris-Sud University, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. Electronic address: Caroline.Robert@gustaveroussyr.fr. · The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, 2001 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 560W, Santa Monica, CA 90404, USA. Electronic address: ohamid@theangelesclinic.org. · University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, 1600 Divisadero St, NZ Bldg A, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA. Electronic address: Adil.Daud@ucsf.edu. · Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081 HZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: vandeneertwegh@VUMC.nl. · Department of Hematology/Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center at UMC North, 3838 N. Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA. Electronic address: lcranmer@uacc.arizona.edu. · The Los Angeles Skin Cancer Institute, The Beverly Hills Cancer Center, 8900 Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, USA. Electronic address: stevenjoday@gmail.com. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, 2220 Pierce Ave, 777 Preston Research Building, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. Electronic address: igor.puzanov@vanderbilt.edu. · Department of Oncology, Ella Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Derech Sheba 2, Tel-Hashomer, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Electronic address: Jacob.Schachter@sheba.health.gov.il. · Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.blank@nki.nl. · Division of Medical Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3198, 20 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC 27710, USA. Electronic address: april.salama@duke.edu. · Skin Clinic, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: carmen.loquai@unimedizin-mainz.de. · Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. Electronic address: mehnerja@cinj.rutgers.edu. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: darcy_hille@merck.com. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: scot_ebbinghaus@merck.com. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: s.peter.kang@merck.com. · Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: wei.zhou2@merck.com. · Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center (JCCC) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. Electronic address: aribas@mednet.ucla.edu. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #27596353.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In KEYNOTE-002, pembrolizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival and was associated with a better safety profile compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma that progressed after ipilimumab. We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes from KEYNOTE-002. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or investigator-choice chemotherapy. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 instrument. A constrained longitudinal data analysis model was implemented to assess between-arm differences in HRQoL scores. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. RESULTS: Of the 540 patients enrolled, 520 were included in the HRQoL analysis. Baseline global health status (GHS) was similar across treatment arms. Compliance rates at week 12 were 76.6% (n = 108), 82.3% (n = 121), and 86.4% (n = 133) for the control, pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Q3W, and pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Q3W arms, respectively. From baseline to week 12, GHS/HRQoL scores were maintained to a higher degree in the pembrolizumab arms compared with the chemotherapy arm (decrease of -2.6 for each pembrolizumab arm versus -9.1 for chemotherapy; P = 0.01 for each pembrolizumab arm versus chemotherapy). Fewer patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced deterioration in GHS at week 12 (31.8% for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 26.6% for 10 mg/kg, and 38.3% for chemotherapy), with similar trends observed for the individual functioning and symptoms scales. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was better maintained with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy in KEYNOTE-002, supporting the use of pembrolizumab in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma.

16 Clinical Trial Patterns of Clinical Response with Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) in Patients with Melanoma Treated in the OPTiM Phase III Clinical Trial. 2016

Andtbacka, Robert H I / Ross, Merrick / Puzanov, Igor / Milhem, Mohammed / Collichio, Frances / Delman, Keith A / Amatruda, Thomas / Zager, Jonathan S / Cranmer, Lee / Hsueh, Eddy / Chen, Lisa / Shilkrut, Mark / Kaufman, Howard L. ·Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Robert.Andtbacka@hci.utah.edu. · University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA. · University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. · Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. · Minnesota Oncology, Fridley, MN, USA. · Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. · University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. · Saint Louis University Cancer Center, St Louis, MO, USA. · Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. · Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, NJ, USA. ·Ann Surg Oncol · Pubmed #27342831.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is an oncolytic immunotherapy designed to induce tumor regression of injected lesions through direct lytic effects, and of uninjected lesions through induction of systemic antitumor immunity. In this study, we describe the patterns and time course of response to T-VEC from the phase III OPTiM trial of 436 patients with unresected stages IIIB-IV melanoma. METHODS: Lesion-level response analyses were performed based on the type of lesion (injected or uninjected cutaneous, subcutaneous, or nodal lesions; or visceral lesions [uninjected]), and the best percentage change from baseline of the sum of products of the longest diameters was calculated. Patients randomized to T-VEC (n = 295) who experienced a durable response (continuous partial or complete response for ≥6 months) were evaluated for progression prior to response (PPR), defined as the appearance of a new lesion or >25 % increase in total baseline tumor area. RESULTS: T-VEC resulted in a decrease in size by ≥50 % in 64 % of injected lesions (N = 2116), 34 % of uninjected non-visceral lesions (N = 981), and 15 % of visceral lesions (N = 177). Complete resolution of lesions occurred in 47 % of injected lesions, 22 % of uninjected non-visceral lesions, and 9 % of visceral lesions. Of 48 patients with durable responses, 23 (48 %) experienced PPR, including 14 who developed new lesions only. No difference in overall survival was observed, and median duration of response was not reached in patients with PPR versus those without PPR. CONCLUSIONS: Responses in uninjected lesions provide validation of T-VEC-induced systemic immunotherapeutic effects against melanoma. PPR did not negatively impact the clinical effectiveness of T-VEC.

17 Clinical Trial Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab in Previously Untreated, Unresectable Stage IIIB-IV Melanoma. 2016

Puzanov, Igor / Milhem, Mohammed M / Minor, David / Hamid, Omid / Li, Ai / Chen, Lisa / Chastain, Michael / Gorski, Kevin S / Anderson, Abraham / Chou, Jeffrey / Kaufman, Howard L / Andtbacka, Robert H I. ·Igor Puzanov, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN · Mohammed M. Milhem, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA · David Minor, California Pacific Melanoma Center, San Francisco · Omid Hamid, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles · and Ai Li, Lisa Chen, Michael Chastain, Kevin S. Gorski, Abraham Anderson, and Jeffrey Chou, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA · Howard L. Kaufman, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ · and Robert H.I. Andtbacka, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #27298410.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Combining immunotherapeutic agents with different mechanisms of action may enhance efficacy. We describe the safety and efficacy of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC; an oncolytic virus) in combination with ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 checkpoint inhibitor) in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase Ib trial of T-VEC in combination with ipilimumab, T-VEC was administered intratumorally in week 1 (10(6) plaque-forming units/mL), then in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter (10(8) plaque-forming units/mL). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for four infusions, beginning in week 6. The primary end point was incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. Secondary end points were objective response rate by immune-related response criteria and safety. RESULTS: Median duration of treatment with T-VEC was 13.3 weeks (range, 2.0 to 95.4 weeks). Median follow-up time for survival analysis was 20.0 months (1.0 to 25.4 months). Nineteen patients were included in the safety analysis. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred, and no new safety signals were detected. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were seen in 26.3% of patients; 15.8% had AEs attributed to T-VEC, and 21.1% had AEs attributed to ipilimumab. The objective response rate was 50%, and 44% of patients had a durable response lasting ≥ 6 months. Eighteen-month progression-free survival was 50%; 18-month overall survival was 67%. CONCLUSION: T-VEC with ipilimumab had a tolerable safety profile, and the combination appeared to have greater efficacy than either T-VEC or ipilimumab monotherapy.

18 Clinical Trial Overall Survival and Durable Responses in Patients With BRAF V600-Mutant Metastatic Melanoma Receiving Dabrafenib Combined With Trametinib. 2016

Long, Georgina V / Weber, Jeffrey S / Infante, Jeffrey R / Kim, Kevin B / Daud, Adil / Gonzalez, Rene / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Hamid, Omid / Schuchter, Lynn / Cebon, Jonathan / Kefford, Richard F / Lawrence, Donald / Kudchadkar, Ragini / Burris, Howard A / Falchook, Gerald S / Algazi, Alain / Lewis, Karl / Puzanov, Igor / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Sun, Peng / Cunningham, Elizabeth / Kline, Amy S / Del Buono, Heather / McDowell, Diane Opatt / Patel, Kiran / Flaherty, Keith T. ·Georgina V. Long, Melanoma Institute Australia · The University of Sydney · Richard F. Kefford, Melanoma Institute Australia · The University of Sydney · Macquarie University, Sydney · Westmead Hospital, Westmead · Jonathan Cebon, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia · Jeffrey S. Weber and Ragini Kudchadkar, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL · Jeffrey R. Infante and Howard A. Burris III, Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology · Kevin B. Kim, California Pacific Medical Center · Adil Daud, Alain Algazi, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco · Omid Hamid, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA · Rene Gonzalez, Karl Lewis, University of Colorado · Gerald S. Falchook, Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO · Jeffrey A. Sosman, Igor Puzanov, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN · Lynn Schuchter, University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center · Nageatte Ibrahim, Elizabeth Cunningham, Merck · Peng Sun, Amy S. Kline, Heather Del Buono, Diane Opatt McDowell, GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, PA · Donald Lawrence and Kiran Patel, Incyte Corporation, Wilmington, DE · and Keith T. Flaherty, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #26811525.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To report the overall survival (OS) and clinical characteristics of BRAF inhibitor-naive long-term responders and survivors treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib in a phase I and II study of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. METHODS: BRAF inhibitor-naive patients treated with dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg daily (the 150/2 group) from the non-randomly assigned (part B) and randomly assigned (part C) cohorts of the study were analyzed for progression-free and OS separately. Baseline characteristics and factors on treatment were analyzed for associations with durable responses and OS. RESULTS: For BRAF inhibitor-naive patients in the 150/2 groups (n = 78), the progression-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 44%, 22%, and 18%, respectively, for part B (n = 24) and 41%, 25%, and 21%, respectively, for part C (n = 54). Median OS was 27.4 months in part B and 25 months in part C. OS at 1, 2, and 3 years was 72%, 60%, and 47%, respectively, for part B and 80%, 51%, and 38%, respectively, for part C. Prolonged survival was associated with metastases in fewer than three organ sites and lower baseline lactate dehydrogenase. OS at 3 years was 62% in patients with normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase and 63% in patients with a complete response. CONCLUSION: Dabrafenib plus trametinib results in a median OS of more than 2 years in BRAF inhibitor-naive patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma, and approximately 20% were progression free at 3 years. Durable responses occurred in patients with good prognostic features at baseline, which may be predictive.

19 Clinical Trial A phase II trial of erlotinib and bevacizumab for patients with metastatic melanoma. 2016

Mudigonda, Tejaswi V / Wyman, Kenneth / Spigel, David R / Dahlman, Kimberly B / Greco, F Anthony / Puzanov, Igor / Kelley, Mark C / Hainsworth, John D / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Johnson, Douglas B. ·Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · Sarah Cannon Research Institute and Tennessee Oncology PLLC, Nashville, TN, USA. · Department of Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · Division of Surgical Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. ·Pigment Cell Melanoma Res · Pubmed #26176864.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

20 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 Clinical Trial Survivorship in Immune Therapy: Assessing Chronic Immune Toxicities, Health Outcomes, and Functional Status among Long-term Ipilimumab Survivors at a Single Referral Center. 2015

Johnson, Douglas B / Friedman, Debra L / Berry, Elizabeth / Decker, Ilka / Ye, Fei / Zhao, Shilin / Morgans, Alicia K / Puzanov, Igor / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Lovly, Christine M. ·Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. douglas.b.johnson@vanderbilt.edu. · Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. · Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. · Department of Quantitative Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. · Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Department of Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. ·Cancer Immunol Res · Pubmed #25649350.

ABSTRACT: Ipilimumab, a novel immune checkpoint inhibitor, is associated with long-term survival in approximately 20% of patients with advanced melanoma and is also being evaluated in the adjuvant setting. With this growing cohort of survivors, long-term health outcomes, chronic toxicities, and functional outcomes among survivors treated with ipilimumab need to be defined. Using retrospective medical record abstraction, we evaluated disease status, chronic immune- and non-immune-related health events, pharmacologic management of symptoms, and functional status in patients with melanoma, with overall survival ≥2 years following ipilimumab treatment at Vanderbilt University. Ninety patients received ipilimumab for metastatic disease or as adjuvant therapy between January 2006 and September 2012, and 33 patients survived ≥2 years, with a median overall survival of 60.1 months. Of these, 24 patients were alive at the last follow-up (73%), with 14 patients free of disease (42%). Gastrointestinal and dermatologic adverse events were frequent but largely transient. By contrast, patients with hypophysitis universally required ongoing corticosteroids, although largely remained asymptomatic with appropriate hormone replacement. Surviving patients generally had excellent performance status (ECOG 0-1 in 23 of 24). Chronic neurologic toxicities caused substantial morbidity and mortality in 2 patients who received whole-brain radiotherapy >5 years before analysis, and in one patient with chronic, painful peripheral neuropathy. No previously undescribed cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, hematologic, or neoplastic safety signals were identified. In conclusion, ipilimumab was associated with largely excellent functional outcomes among long-term survivors. Chronic endocrine dysfunction and occasional neurologic toxicity (primarily associated with whole-brain radiation) were observed in a small number of patients.

24 Clinical Trial Ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone for treatment of metastatic melanoma: a randomized clinical trial. 2014

Hodi, F Stephen / Lee, Sandra / McDermott, David F / Rao, Uma N / Butterfield, Lisa H / Tarhini, Ahmad A / Leming, Philip / Puzanov, Igor / Shin, Donghoon / Kirkwood, John M. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts3Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts5Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. · University of Pittsburgh Department of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. · Hematology and Oncology, The Christ Hospital Cancer Center, Cincinnati, Ohio9University of Cincinnati Department of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. · Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. ·JAMA · Pubmed #25369488.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE: Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) blockade with ipilimumab prolongs survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. CTLA-4 blockade and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-secreting tumor vaccine combinations demonstrate therapeutic synergy in preclinical models. A key unanswered question is whether systemic GM-CSF (sargramostim) enhances CTLA-4 blockade. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone on overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) conducted a US-based phase 2 randomized clinical trial from December 28, 2010, until July 28, 2011, of patients (N = 245) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, at least 1 prior therapy, no central nervous system metastases, and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, intravenously on day 1 plus sargramostim, 250 μg subcutaneously, on days 1 to 14 of a 21-day cycle (n = 123) vs ipilimumab alone (n = 122). Ipilimumab treatment included induction for 4 cycles followed by maintenance every fourth cycle. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point: comparison of length of OS. Secondary end point: progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 13.3 months (range, 0.03-19.9). Median OS as of December 2012 for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 17.5 months (95% CI, 14.9-not reached) vs 12.7 months (95% CI, 10.0-not reached) for ipilimumab. The 1-year survival rate for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 68.9% (95% CI, 60.6%-85.5%) compared to 52.9% (95% CI, 43.6%-62.2%) for ipilimumab alone (stratified log-rank 1-sided P = .01; mortality hazard ratio 0.64 [1-sided 90% repeated CI, not applicable-0.90]). A planned interim analysis was conducted at 69.8% of expected events (104 observed with 149 expected deaths). Planned interim analysis using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary was crossed for improvement in OS. There was no difference in PFS. Median PFS for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.6) vs 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.0) for ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 44.9% (95% CI; 35.8%-54.4%) of patients in the ipilimumab plus sargramostim group vs 58.3% (95% CI, 49.0%-67.2%) of patients in the ipilimumab-alone group (2-sided P = .04). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, treatment with ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone resulted in longer OS and lower toxicity, but no difference in PFS. These findings require confirmation in larger studies with longer follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01134614.

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

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

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

Next