Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Jacob Schachter
Based on 65 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, J. Schachter wrote the following 65 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3
1 Editorial Adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for melanoma: new players, old game. 2015

Ben-Ami, Eytan / Schachter, Jacob. ·Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Melanoma, Division of Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. ·Immunotherapy · Pubmed #26065473.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

2 Review Adoptive T cell therapy: An overview of obstacles and opportunities. 2017

Baruch, Erez Nissim / Berg, Amy Lauren / Besser, Michal Judith / Schachter, Jacob / Markel, Gal. ·The Ella Lemelbaum Institute of Immuno-oncology, Institute of Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. · Talpiot Medical Leadership Program, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. ·Cancer · Pubmed #28543698.

ABSTRACT: The therapeutic potential of adoptive cell therapy (ACT) in cancer patients was first acknowledged 3 decades ago, but it was an esoteric approach at the time. In recent years, technological advancements have transformed ACT into a viable therapeutic option that can be curative in some patients. In fact, current ACT response rates are 80% to 90% for hematological malignancies and 30% for metastatic melanoma refractory to multiple lines of therapy. Although these results are encouraging, there is still much to be done to fulfill ACT's potential, specifically with regard to improving clinical efficacy, expanding clinical indications, reducing toxicity, and increasing production and cost-effectiveness. This review addresses the current major obstacles to ACT and presents potential solutions. Cancer 2017;123:2154-62. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

3 Review Adoptive Cell Therapy for Metastatic Melanoma. 2017

Merhavi-Shoham, Efrat / Itzhaki, Orit / Markel, Gal / Schachter, Jacob / Besser, Michal J. ·From the *Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Immuno-Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer; and †Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. ·Cancer J · Pubmed #28114254.

ABSTRACT: Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is a powerful form of immunotherapy by inducing durable complete responses that significantly extend the survival of melanoma patients. Mutation-derived neoantigens were recently identified as key factors for tumor recognition and rejection by TILs. The isolation of T-cell receptor (TCR) genes directed against neoantigens and their retransduction into peripheral T cells may provide a new form of ACT.Genetic modifications of T cells with chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) have demonstrated remarkable clinical results in hematologic malignancies, but are so far less effective in solid tumors. Only very limited reports exist in melanoma. Progress in CAR T-cell engineering, including neutralization of inhibitory signals or additional safety switches, may open opportunities also in melanoma.We review clinical results and latest developments of adoptive therapies with TILs, T-cell receptor, and CAR-modified T cells and discuss future directions for the treatment of melanoma.

4 Review Predictors of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte efficacy in melanoma. 2016

Zikich, Dragoslav / Schachter, Jacob / Besser, Michal J. ·The Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, 52621 Ramat-Gan, Israel. · Department of Clinical Microbiology & Immunology, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel. ·Immunotherapy · Pubmed #26653685.

ABSTRACT: In the past decades, the increasing knowledge in cellular immunology and tumor-host immune interactions, led to the development of immunotherapy approaches. Immunotherapy, based on adoptive cell transfer of ex vivo activated and expanded tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes (TILs), has shown promising clinical results in patients with metastatic melanoma. TIL therapy yields response rates of around 50% and significant survival benefit in refractory melanoma patients, even after failing other immunotherapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors or cytokine-based therapy. Identifying predictors of TIL efficacy and detection of TIL subsets with specific reactivity against the patient's tumor might be an important milestone toward further improvement of clinical responses and prolonged survival.

5 Review Who benefits most from adjuvant interferon treatment for melanoma? 2015

Gogas, Helen / Abali, Huseyin / Ascierto, Paolo A / Demidov, Lev / Pehamberger, Hubert / Robert, Caroline / Schachter, Jacob / Eggermont, Alexander M M / Hauschild, Axel / Espinosa, Enrique. ·1First Department of Medicine, Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece; 2Division of Medical Oncology, Baskent University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey; 3Unit of Medical Oncology and Innovative Therapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione "G. Pascale," Naples, Italy; 4Department of Biotherapy, Blokhin Cancer Center, Moscow, Russia; 5Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 6Department of Dermatology, Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Cedex, France; 7Department of Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel; 8Department of Dermatologie, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany; and 9Oncology Service, Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. ·Am J Ther · Pubmed #24176884.

ABSTRACT: Metastatic melanoma has a poor prognosis; the median survival for patients with stage IV melanoma ranges from 8 to 18 months after diagnosis. Interferon-α provides significant improvement in disease-free survival at the cost of poor tolerability. Identifying patients who benefit the most may improve the cost:benefit ratio. In addition, no data exist for the role of adjuvant therapy in noncutaneous melanoma. Molecular profiles may help to identify patients who benefit the most from adjuvant interferon therapy. In this review, the American Joint Commission on Cancer 2009 staging criteria and emerging biomarker data to guide adjuvant treatment decisions will be discussed. Several criteria to guide selection of patients are discussed in detail. These include Breslow thickness, number of positive lymph nodes, whether or not the primary lesion has ulcerated, immunologic markers, and cytokine profiles. Substantial progress has been made in deciding which patients benefit from interferon-α adjuvant therapy. Interferon-α is the only agent currently approved for the adjuvant treatment of this deadly disease, despite its side effect profile. More effective drugs with better tolerability are needed.

6 Review Immunotherapy for the management of advanced melanoma: the next steps. 2013

Zikich, Dragoslav / Schachter, Jacob / Besser, Michal J. ·Ella Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, 52621 Ramat-Gan, Israel. ·Am J Clin Dermatol · Pubmed #23516145.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma is an immunogenic tumor that can induce a natural immune response. A number of immunotherapy-based approaches have been developed over the past decades, and certain degrees of effectiveness were achieved by the use of cytokines, adoptive cell transfer and T-cell immune modulators. Currently, interleukin-2 and the immune stimulatory antibody, ipilimumab, are the only two approved immunotherapies for metastatic melanoma, but various new therapies are in promising developmental stages. This comprehensive review will discuss the latest achievements of immunotherapy and emerging directions for the management of advanced melanoma.

7 Review Adoptive T-cell transfer in melanoma. 2013

Itzhaki, Orit / Levy, Daphna / Zikich, Dragoslav / Treves, Avraham J / Markel, Gal / Schachter, Jacob / Besser, Michal J. ·Ella Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, 52621 Ramat Gan, Israel. ·Immunotherapy · Pubmed #23256800.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy holds a highly promising treatment approach for metastatic melanoma patients. Adoptive cell transfer (ACT) involves the ex vivo expansion of autologous antitumor reactive lymphocytes and their reinfusion into lymphodepleted patients, accompanied by IL-2 administration. ACT with tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes demonstrates objective clinical responses in 50-72% of the patients, including 10-40% complete responses and was shown to produce durable disease control with long progression-free survival. Tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocyte ACT might even have curative potential as the vast majority of the complete responders are without any evidence of disease many years after treatment. Other adoptive transfer studies employ the genetic modification of T lymphocytes with genes encoding tumor-specific T cell receptors or antibody-based chimeric antigen receptors. These approaches opened numerous possibilities to treat cancers other than melanoma. In this article we will summarize the ACT strategies in melanoma, the new developments in this field and combinations with other therapies.

8 Review Adoptive immunotherapy of advanced melanoma. 2012

Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie / Schachter, Jacob. ·Ella Institute for the Treatment and Research of Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, 52621, Israel. roni.shapira@sheba.health.gov.il ·Curr Treat Options Oncol · Pubmed #22864561.

ABSTRACT: Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) has emerged as an effective therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma. Since the first introduction of the protocol in 1988 [1], major improvements have been achieved with response rates of 40%-72% among patients who were resistant to previous treatment lines. Both cell product and conditioning regimen are major determinants of treatment efficacy; therefore, developing ACT protocols explore diverse ways to establish autologous intra-tumoral lymphocyte cultures or peripheral effector cells as well as different lymphodepleting regimens. While a proof of feasibility and a proof of concept had been established with previous published results, ACT will need to move beyond single-center experiences, to confirmatory, multi-center studies. If ACT is to move into widespread practice, it will be necessary to develop reproducible high quality cell production methods and accepted lymphodepleting regimen. Two new drugs, ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf, Roche), were approved in 2011 for the treatment of metastatic melanoma based on positive phase III trials. Both drugs show a clear overall survival benefit, so the timing of when to use ACT will need to be carefully thought out. In contrast to these 2 new, commercially available outpatient treatments, ACT is a personally-specified product and labor-intensive therapy that demands both acquisition of high standard laboratory procedures and close clinical inpatient monitoring during treatment. It is unique among other anti-melanoma treatments, providing the potential for a durable response following a single, self-limited treatment. This perspective drives the efforts to make this protocol accessible for more patients and to explore modifications that may optimize treatment results.

9 Review Novel anti-melanoma immunotherapies: disarming tumor escape mechanisms. 2012

Sapoznik, Sivan / Hammer, Ohad / Ortenberg, Rona / Besser, Michal J / Ben-Moshe, Tehila / Schachter, Jacob / Markel, Gal. ·Ella Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan 52621, Israel. ·Clin Dev Immunol · Pubmed #22778766.

ABSTRACT: The immune system fights cancer and sometimes temporarily eliminates it or reaches an equilibrium stage of tumor growth. However, continuous immunological pressure also selects poorly immunogenic tumor variants that eventually escape the immune control system. Here, we focus on metastatic melanoma, a highly immunogenic tumor, and on anti-melanoma immunotherapies, which recently, especially following the FDA approval of Ipilimumab, gained interest from drug development companies. We describe new immunomodulatory approaches currently in the development pipeline, focus on the novel CEACAM1 immune checkpoint, and compare its potential to the extensively described targets, CTLA4 and PD1. This paper combines multi-disciplinary approaches and describes anti-melanoma immunotherapies from molecular, medical, and business angles.

10 Review CEACAM1 in malignant melanoma: a diagnostic and therapeutic target. 2012

Sapoznik, S / Ortenberg, R / Schachter, J / Markel, G. ·Ella Institute of Melanoma, Cancer Research Center, Sheba Medical Center 52621, Israel. ·Curr Top Med Chem · Pubmed #22196267.

ABSTRACT: CEACAM1 adhesion molecule is broadly expressed, participates in pivotal cellular and immunological processes and is involved in cancer. Originally identified as a tumor suppressor, it is now known that in several cancers, including malignant melanoma, CEACAM1 expression correlates with tumor progression and poor survival. Here we review the findings connecting CEACAM1 to malignant melanoma, encompassing in-vitro, in-vivo and patients-derived data. A CEACAM1-mediated mechanism used by melanoma cells to evade immune attack is described in detail. Finally, the potential value of CEACAM1 as a melanoma biomarker and therapeutic target is being discussed.

11 Review Focus on adoptive T cell transfer trials in melanoma. 2010

Hershkovitz, Liat / Schachter, Jacob / Treves, Avraham J / Besser, Michal J. ·Ella Institute of Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer 52621, Israel. ·Clin Dev Immunol · Pubmed #21234353.

ABSTRACT: Adoptive Cell Transfer (ACT) of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL) in combination with lymphodepletion has proven to be an effective treatment for metastatic melanoma patients, with an objective response rate in 50%-70% of the patients. It is based on the ex vivo expansion and activation of tumor-specific T lymphocytes extracted from the tumor and their administration back to the patient. Various TIL-ACT trials, which differ in their TIL generation procedures and patient preconditioning, have been reported. In the latest clinical studies, genetically engineered peripheral T cells were utilized instead of TIL. Further improvement of adoptive T cell transfer depends on new investigations which seek higher TIL quality, increased durable response rates, and aim to treat more patients. Simplifying this therapy may encourage cancer centers worldwide to adopt this promising technology. This paper focuses on the latest progress regarding adoptive T cell transfer, comparing the currently available protocols and discussing their advantages, disadvantages, and implication in the future.

12 Review Immunotherapy of distant metastatic disease. 2009

Schadendorf, D / Algarra, S M / Bastholt, L / Cinat, G / Dreno, B / Eggermont, A M M / Espinosa, E / Guo, J / Hauschild, A / Petrella, T / Schachter, J / Hersey, P. ·Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. dirk.schadendorf@uk-essen.de ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #19617297.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy of metastatic melanoma consists of various approaches leading to specific or non-specific immunomodulation. The use of FDA-approved interleukin (IL)-2 alone, in combination with interferon alpha, and/or with various chemotherapeutic agents (biochemotherapy) is associated with significant toxicity and poor efficacy that does not improve overall survival of 96% of patients. Many studies with allogeneic and autologous vaccines have demonstrated no clinical benefit, and some randomised trials even showed a detrimental effect in the vaccine arm. The ongoing effort to develop melanoma vaccines based on dendritic cells and peptides is driven by advances in understanding antigen presentation and processing, and by new techniques of vaccine preparation, stabilisation and delivery. Several agents that have shown promising activity in metastatic melanoma including IL-21 and monoclonal antibodies targeting cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (anti-CTLA-4) or CD137 are discussed. Recent advances of intratumour gene transfer technologies and adoptive immunotherapy, which represents a promising although technically challenging direction, are also discussed.

13 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.

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

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

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

15 Clinical Trial Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006). 2017

Schachter, Jacob / Ribas, Antoni / Long, Georgina V / Arance, Ana / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Mortier, Laurent / Daud, Adil / Carlino, Matteo S / McNeil, Catriona / Lotem, Michal / Larkin, James / Lorigan, Paul / Neyns, Bart / Blank, Christian / Petrella, Teresa M / Hamid, Omid / Zhou, Honghong / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Robert, Caroline. ·Division of Oncology, Ella Lemelbaum Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. Electronic address: jacob.schachter@sheba.health.gov.il. · Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology and Translational Research, Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Mater Hospital and Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Dermatology and Skin Cancer, Aix Marseille University, Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille, France. · Department of Dermatology, Université Lille, INSERM U1189, CHU Lille, F-59000, France. · Department of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, Melanoma Institute Australia, and The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and Melanoma Institute Australia, Camperdown, Australia. · Department of Melanoma and Cancer Immunotherapy, Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. · Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology University of Manchester and the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology/Hematology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Department of Hematology/Oncology, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Department of BARDS, Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Department of Clinical Oncology, Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. · Department of Oncology, Gustave Roussy and Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France. ·Lancet · Pubmed #28822576.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Interim analyses of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-006 study showed superior overall and progression-free survival of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. We present the final protocol-specified survival analysis. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, UK, and USA). We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to one of two dose regimens of pembrolizumab, or one regimen of ipilimumab, using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule. Treatment assignments used blocked randomisation within strata. Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (excluding ocular melanoma), and up to one previous systemic therapy (excluding anti-CTLA-4, PD-1, or PD-L1 agents). Secondary eligibility criteria are described later. Patients were excluded if they had active brain metastases or active autoimmune disease requiring systemic steroids. The primary outcome was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause). Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review at week 12, then every 6 weeks up to week 48, and then every 12 weeks thereafter. Survival was assessed every 12 weeks, and final analysis occurred after all patients were followed up for at least 21 months. Primary analysis was done on the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients) and safety analyses were done in the treated population (all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). Data cutoff date for this analysis was Dec 3, 2015. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients with advanced melanoma were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive intravenous pembrolizumab every 2 weeks (n=279), intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (n=277), or intravenous ipilimumab every 3 weeks (ipilimumab for four doses; n=278). One patient in the pembrolizumab 2 week group and 22 patients in the ipilimumab group withdrew consent and did not receive treatment. A total of 811 patients received at least one dose of study treatment. Median follow-up was 22·9 months; 383 patients died. Median overall survival was not reached in either pembrolizumab group and was 16·0 months with ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68, 95% CI 0·53-0·87 for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks vs ipilimumab; p=0·0009 and 0·68, 0·53-0·86 for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks vs ipilimumab; p=0·0008). 24-month overall survival rate was 55% in the 2-week group, 55% in the 3-week group, and 43% in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Substantiating the results of the interim analyses of KEYNOTE-006, pembrolizumab continued to provide superior overall survival versus ipilimumab, with no difference between pembrolizumab dosing schedules. These conclusions further support the use of pembrolizumab as a standard of care for advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

16 Clinical Trial Perioperative BRAF inhibitors in locally advanced stage III melanoma. 2017

Zippel, Douglas / Markel, Gal / Shapira-Frommer, Roni / Ben-Betzalel, Guy / Goitein, David / Ben-Ami, Eytan / Nissan, Aviram / Schachter, Jacob / Schneebaum, Schlomo. ·Department of Surgery C, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. · Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. · Department of Oncology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. · Department of Surgery, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. ·J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #28650570.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Stage III malignant melanoma is a heterogeneous disease where those cases deemed marginally resectable or irresecatble are frequently incurable by surgery alone. Targeted therapy takes advantage of the high incidence of BRAF mutations in melanomas, most notably the V600E mutation. These agents have rarely been used in a neoadjuvant setting prior to surgery. METHODS: Thirteen consecutive patients with confirmed BRAF RESULTS: Overall, 12/13 patients showed a marked clinical responsiveness to medical treatment, enabling a macroscopically successful resection in all cases. Four patients had a complete pathological response with no viable tumor evident in the resected specimens and eight patients showed evidence of minimally residual tumor with extensive tumoral necrosis and fibrosis. One patient progressed and died before surgery. At a median follow up of 20 months, 10 patients remain free of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative treatment with BRAF inhibiting agents in BRAFV600E mutated Stage III melanoma patients facilitates surgical resection and affords satisfactory disease free survival.

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 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.

20 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.

21 Clinical Trial Comparison of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy with vemurafenib monotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous BRAF Val600-mutation-positive melanoma (COMBI-v): results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial. 2015

Grob, Jean Jacques / Amonkar, Mayur M / Karaszewska, Boguslawa / Schachter, Jacob / Dummer, Reinhard / Mackiewicz, Andrzej / Stroyakovskiy, Daniil / Drucis, Kamil / Grange, Florent / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Rutkowski, Piotr / Lichinitser, Mikhail / Levchenko, Evgeny / Wolter, Pascal / Hauschild, Axel / Long, Georgina V / Nathan, Paul / Ribas, Antoni / Flaherty, Keith / Sun, Peng / Legos, Jeffrey J / McDowell, Diane Opatt / Mookerjee, Bijoyesh / Schadendorf, Dirk / Robert, Caroline. ·Service de Dermatologie, Aix Marseille University, and Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille (APHM), University Hospital Timone, Marseille, France. Electronic address: jean-jacques.grob@ap-hm.fr. · GlaxoSmithKline Oncology Research and Development, Collegeville, PA, USA. · Przychodnia Lekarska Komed, Konin, Poland. · Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Ramat, Israel. · Department of Dermatology, Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland. · Oncology Division, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Med-Polonia, Poznan, Poland. · Moscow City Oncology Hospital #62, Stepanovskoye, Moscow, Russia. · Swissmed Centrum Zdrowia and Gdansk Medical University, Gdansk, Poland. · Centre Hospitalier Universitairede Reims-Hôpital Robert Debré, Reims, France. · Istituto Oncologico Veneto Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padua, Italy. · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. · N N Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia. · Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Russia. · University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven, Belgium. · Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Department of Dermatology, Kiel, Germany. · Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney and The Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia. · Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK. · University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. · Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. · Gustave Roussy, Département de Médecine oncologique, Service de Dermatologie et Université Paris-Sud, Faculté de Médecine, Villejuif, France. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #26433819.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In the COMBI-v trial, patients with previously untreated BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma who were treated with the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib had significantly longer overall and progression-free survival than those treated with vemurafenib alone. Here, we present the effects of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), an exploratory endpoint in the COMBI-v study. METHODS: COMBI-v was an open-label, randomised phase 3 study in which 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF Val600 mutation were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice-daily) and trametinib (2 mg once-daily) or vemurafenib monotherapy (960 mg twice-daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. In this pre-specified exploratory analysis, we prospectively assessed HRQoL in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D), and Melanoma Subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), completed at baseline, during study treatment, at disease progression, and after progression. We used a mixed-model, repeated measures ANCOVA to assess differences in mean scores between groups with baseline score as covariate; all p-values are descriptive. The COMBI-v trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01597908, and is ongoing for the primary endpoint, but is not recruiting patients. FINDINGS: From June 4, 2012, to Oct 7, 2013, 1645 patients at 193 centres worldwide were screened for eligibility, and 704 patients were randomly assigned to dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=352) or vemurafenib (n=352). Questionnaire completion rates for both groups were high (>95% at baseline, >80% at follow-up assessments, and >70% at disease progression) with similar HRQoL and symptom scores reported at baseline in both treatment groups for all questionnaires. Differences in mean scores between treatment groups were significant and clinically meaningful in favour of the combination compared with vemurafenib monotherapy for most domains across all three questionnaires during study treatment and at disease progression, including EORTC QLQ-C30 global health (7·92, 7·62, 6·86, 7·47, 5·16, 7·56, and 7·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·005 at week 40), EORTC QLQ-C30 pain (-13·20, -8·05, -8·82, -12·69, -12·46, -11·41, and -10·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001), EQ-5D thermometer scores (7·96, 8·05, 6·83, 11·53, 7·41, 9·08, and 10·51 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·006 at week 32), and FACT-M Melanoma Subscale score (3·62, 2·93, 2·45, 3·39, 2·85, 3·00, and 3·68 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: From the patient's perspective, which integrates not only survival advantage but also disease-associated and adverse-event-associated symptoms, treatment with the combination of a BRAF inhibitor plus a MEK inhibitor (dabrafenib plus trametinib) adds a clear benefit over monotherapy with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and supports the combination therapy as standard of care in this population.

22 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.

23 Clinical Trial Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. 2015

Robert, Caroline / Schachter, Jacob / Long, Georgina V / Arance, Ana / Grob, Jean Jacques / Mortier, Laurent / Daud, Adil / Carlino, Matteo S / McNeil, Catriona / Lotem, Michal / Larkin, James / Lorigan, Paul / Neyns, Bart / Blank, Christian U / Hamid, Omid / Mateus, Christine / Shapira-Frommer, Ronnie / Kosh, Michele / Zhou, Honghong / Ibrahim, Nageatte / Ebbinghaus, Scot / Ribas, Antoni / Anonymous4340827. ·The authors' affiliations are listed in the Appendix. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #25891173.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Pembrolizumab inhibits the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint and has antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, we assigned 834 patients with advanced melanoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks. Primary end points were progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: The estimated 6-month progression-free-survival rates were 47.3% for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 46.4% for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and 26.5% for ipilimumab (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.58; P<0.001 for both pembrolizumab regimens versus ipilimumab; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.46 to 0.72 and 0.47 to 0.72, respectively). Estimated 12-month survival rates were 74.1%, 68.4%, and 58.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for death for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.83; P=0.0005; hazard ratio for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P=0.0036). The response rate was improved with pembrolizumab administered every 2 weeks (33.7%) and every 3 weeks (32.9%), as compared with ipilimumab (11.9%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Responses were ongoing in 89.4%, 96.7%, and 87.9% of patients, respectively, after a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Efficacy was similar in the two pembrolizumab groups. Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 to 5 severity were lower in the pembrolizumab groups (13.3% and 10.1%) than in the ipilimumab group (19.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01866319.).

24 Clinical Trial Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. 2015

Robert, Caroline / Karaszewska, Boguslawa / Schachter, Jacob / Rutkowski, Piotr / Mackiewicz, Andrzej / Stroiakovski, Daniil / Lichinitser, Michael / Dummer, Reinhard / Grange, Florent / Mortier, Laurent / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Drucis, Kamil / Krajsova, Ivana / Hauschild, Axel / Lorigan, Paul / Wolter, Pascal / Long, Georgina V / Flaherty, Keith / Nathan, Paul / Ribas, Antoni / Martin, Anne-Marie / Sun, Peng / Crist, Wendy / Legos, Jeff / Rubin, Stephen D / Little, Shonda M / Schadendorf, Dirk. ·The authors' affiliations are listed in the Appendix. ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #25399551.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown efficacy as monotherapies in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Combining dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, enhanced antitumor activity in this population of patients. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) or vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At the preplanned interim overall survival analysis, which was performed after 77% of the total number of expected events occurred, the overall survival rate at 12 months was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67 to 77) in the combination-therapy group and 65% (95% CI, 59 to 70) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89; P=0.005). The prespecified interim stopping boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped for efficacy in July 2014. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the combination-therapy group and 7.3 months in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-therapy group and 51% in the vemurafenib group (P<0.001). Rates of severe adverse events and study-drug discontinuations were similar in the two groups. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma occurred in 1% of patients in the combination-therapy group and 18% of those in the vemurafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

25 Clinical Trial Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicentre, safety study. 2014

Larkin, James / Del Vecchio, Michele / Ascierto, Paolo A / Krajsova, Ivana / Schachter, Jacob / Neyns, Bart / Espinosa, Enrique / Garbe, Claus / Sileni, Vanna Chiarion / Gogas, Helen / Miller, Wilson H / Mandalà, Mario / Hospers, Geke A P / Arance, Ana / Queirolo, Paola / Hauschild, Axel / Brown, Michael P / Mitchell, Lada / Veronese, Luisa / Blank, Christian U. ·Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: james.larkin@rmh.nhs.uk. · Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. · Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Innovative Therapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy. · Dermatooncology Department, General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. · Ella Institute for Melanoma, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. · Service of Oncology-Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. · Universität Tübingen-Hautklinik, Tübingen, Germany. · Melanoma Oncology Unit, Veneto Oncology Institute, Gattamelata, Padova, Italy. · Medical Oncology, University of Athens, Greece. · Lady Davis Institute and Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. · Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. · IRCCS San Martino Hospital-IST, Genoa, Italy. · University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Dermatology, Kiel, Germany. · Cancer Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, and Centre for Cancer Biology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, SA, Australia. · F Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland. · Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: c.blank@nki.nl. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #24582505.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, compared with dacarbazine, shows improved response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma that has a BRAF(V600) mutation. We assessed vemurafenib in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma with BRAF(V600) mutations who had few treatment options. METHODS: In an open-label, multicentre study, patients with untreated or previously treated melanoma and a BRAF(V600) mutation received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was safety. All analyses were done on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of vemurafenib. This report is the third interim analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307397. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2013, 3226 patients were enrolled in 44 countries. 3222 patients received at least one dose of vemurafenib (safety population). At data cutoff, 868 (27%) patients were on study treatment and 2354 (73%) had withdrawn, mainly because of disease progression. Common adverse events of all grades included rash (1592 [49%]), arthralgia (1259 [39%]), fatigue (1093 [34%]), photosensitivity reaction (994 [31%]), alopecia (826 [26%]), and nausea (628 [19%]). 1480 (46%) patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (389 [12%]), rash (155 [5%]), liver function abnormalities (165 [5%]), arthralgia (106 [3%]), and fatigue (93 [3%]). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were reported more frequently in patients aged 75 years and older (n=257; 152 [59%, 95% CI 53-65] and ten [4%, 2-7], respectively) than in those younger than 75 years (n=2965; 1286 [43%, 42-45] and 82 [3%, 2-3], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Vemurafenib safety in this diverse population of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma, who are more representative of routine clinical practice, was consistent with the safety profile shown in the pivotal trials of this drug. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Next