Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Melanoma: HELP
Articles by Jeffrey Alan Sosman
Based on 115 articles published since 2009
(Why 115 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, J. Sosman wrote the following 115 articles about Melanoma.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5
1 Guideline Melanoma, Version 2.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2016

Coit, Daniel G / Thompson, John A / Algazi, Alain / Andtbacka, Robert / Bichakjian, Christopher K / Carson, William E / Daniels, Gregory A / DiMaio, Dominick / Ernstoff, Marc / Fields, Ryan C / Fleming, Martin D / Gonzalez, Rene / Guild, Valerie / Halpern, Allan C / Hodi, F Stephen / Joseph, Richard W / Lange, Julie R / Martini, Mary C / Materin, Miguel A / Olszanski, Anthony J / Ross, Merrick I / Salama, April K / Skitzki, Joseph / Sosman, Jeff / Swetter, Susan M / Tanabe, Kenneth K / Torres-Roca, Javier F / Trisal, Vijay / Urist, Marshall M / McMillian, Nicole / Engh, Anita. · ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #27059193.

ABSTRACT: This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Melanoma focuses on adjuvant therapy and treatment of in-transit disease, because substantial changes were made to the recommendations for the 2016 update. Depending on the stage of the disease, options for adjuvant therapy now include biochemotherapy and high-dose ipilimumab. Treatment options for in-transit disease now include intralesional injection with talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a new immunotherapy. These additions prompted re-assessment of the data supporting older recommended treatment options for adjuvant therapy and in-transit disease, resulting in extensive revisions to the supporting discussion sections.

2 Guideline The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on tumour immunotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma. 2013

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

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

3 Review Combining Tumor Vaccination and Oncolytic Viral Approaches with Checkpoint Inhibitors: Rationale, Pre-Clinical Experience, and Current Clinical Trials in Malignant Melanoma. 2018

Cavalcante, Ludimila / Chowdhary, Akansha / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Chandra, Sunandana. ·Division of Hematology and Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. · Division of Hematology and Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. sunandana.chandra@northwestern.edu. ·Am J Clin Dermatol · Pubmed #29961183.

ABSTRACT: The field of tumor immunology has faced many complex challenges over the last century, but the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 [CTLA4] and anti-programmed cell death-1 [PD-1]/PD-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) and talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) for the treatment of metastatic melanoma have awakened a new wave of interest in cancer immunotherapy. Additionally, combinations of vaccines and oncolytic viral therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors and other systemic agents seem to be promising synergistic strategies to further boost the immune response against cancer. These combinations are undergoing clinical investigation, and if successful, will hopefully soon become available to patients. Here, we review key basic concepts of tumor-induced immune suppression in malignant melanoma, the historical perspective around vaccine development in melanoma, and advances in oncolytic viral therapies. We also discuss the emerging role for combination approaches with different immunomodulatory agents as well as new developments in personalized immunization approaches.

4 Review Emerging growth factor receptor antagonists for the treatment of advanced melanoma. 2017

Fenton, Sarah E / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Chandra, Sunandana. ·a Internal Medicine Department , Chicago , IL , USA. · b Division of Hematology Oncology , Chicago , IL , USA. ·Expert Opin Emerg Drugs · Pubmed #28562096.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Therapy for metastatic melanoma has undergone a rapid transformation over the past 5-10 years. Advances in immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors, including both anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/PD-L1, have led to durable responses in up to 50% of patients. As our understanding of the processes driving the transformation of melanocytes has improved, progress in targeted therapies has also continued. Areas covered: Angiogenesis and the tumor's dependence on an expanded vascular supply has been a target for novel therapies since the 1970's, as this tissue is derived from endothelial cells that are genetically stable in adults. A phase II trial studying combined therapy with bevacizumab (an inhibitor of angiogenesis) and ipilimumab found promising results. Other agents such as sorafenib have not been as successful, failing to extend progression free or overall survival in clinical trials. In this paper other targeted growth factor inhibitors will also be discussed. Expert opinion: Ultimately, melanoma may not be vulnerable solely to chemotherapy or targeted therapy, but may be efficaciously treated with immunotherapy due to its high mutational rate resulting in the expression of numerous neo-antigens. Therapies with combinations of agents including growth factor receptor and either other targeted therapies or immunotherapy may be a promising complimentary approach.

5 Review Novel Targeted Therapies for Metastatic Melanoma. 2017

Iams, Wade T / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Chandra, Sunandana. ·From the Division of Hematology/Oncology, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. ·Cancer J · Pubmed #28114255.

ABSTRACT: Oncogene-targeted therapy is a major component of precision oncology, and although patients with metastatic melanoma have experienced improved outcomes with this strategy, there are a number of potential therapeutic targets currently under study that may further increase the drug armamentarium for this patient population. In this review, we discuss the landscape of targeted therapies for patients with advanced melanoma, focusing on oncogene mutation-specific targets. In patients with typical BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, combination BRAF and MEK inhibition has surpassed outcomes compared with monotherapy with BRAF or MEK inhibition alone, and current strategies seek to address inevitable resistance mechanisms. For patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma, MEK inhibitor monotherapy and combined MEK and CDK4/6 inhibition are burgeoning strategies; for patients with KIT-mutant melanoma, tyrosine kinase inhibition is being leveraged, and for NF-1-mutant melanoma, mTOR and MEK inhibition is being actively evaluated. In patients with atypical, non-V600 BRAF-mutant melanoma, MEK inhibitor monotherapy is the potential novel targeted approach on the horizon. For advanced uveal melanoma, novel targets such as IMCgp100 and glembatumumab have shown activity in early studies. We review additional strategies that remain in the preclinical and early clinical pipeline, so there is much hope for the future of targeted agents for distinct molecular cohorts of patients with advanced melanoma.

6 Review Emerging targeted therapies for melanoma. 2016

Johnson, Douglas B / Pollack, Megan H / Sosman, Jeffrey A. ·a Department of Medicine , Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center , Nashville , TN , USA. · b Department of Pharmacology , Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center , Nashville , TN , USA. ·Expert Opin Emerg Drugs · Pubmed #27148822.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Melanoma is an aggressive cutaneous malignancy associated with poor response to traditional therapies. Recent regulatory approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors and agents targeting mutated BRAF has led to a tremendous expansion of effective treatment options for patients with advanced melanoma. Unfortunately, primary or acquired resistance develops in most patients, highlighting the need for additional therapies. Numerous genetic and other molecular features of this disease may provide effective targets for therapy development. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews available melanoma treatments, including immune and molecularly-targeted therapies. We then discuss agents in development, with a focus on targeted (rather than immune) therapies. In particular, we discuss agents that block mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, as well as other emerging approaches such as antibody-drug conjugates, cell-cycle targeting, and novel genetically-informed clinical trials. EXPERT OPINION: Despite the incredible advances in melanoma therapeutics over the last several years, a clear need to develop more effective therapies remains. Molecularly-targeted therapy approaches will likely remain a cornerstone of melanoma treatment in parallel to immune therapy strategies.

7 Review Molecular Targeted Therapy Approaches for BRAF Wild-Type Melanoma. 2016

Johnpulle, Romany A N / Johnson, Douglas B / Sosman, Jeffrey A. ·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. Romany.a.johnpulle@vanderbilt.edu. · 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. · 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. Jeff.sosman@vanderbilt.edu. ·Curr Oncol Rep · Pubmed #26743513.

ABSTRACT: Patients with metastatic melanoma have historically had dismal outcomes. The last several years has seen the emergence of effective immune and targeted therapies for metastatic melanoma. Targeted therapies have primarily impacted the 40-50% of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated melanoma. The remainder of patients with advanced melanoma harbor a wide spectrum of mutations other than BRAF(V600) that are associated with unique pathophysiological, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. The treatment of this subset of patients is a challenging problem. In recent years, preclinical and early clinical studies have suggested that inhibitors of mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway and parallel signaling networks may have activity in treatment of BRAF(V600) wild-type (WT) melanoma. In this review, we will discuss available and developing therapies for BRAF WT patients with metastatic melanoma, particularly focusing on molecular targeted options for various genetically defined melanoma subsets.

8 Review Therapeutic Advances and Treatment Options in Metastatic Melanoma. 2015

Johnson, Douglas B / Sosman, Jeffrey A. ·Division of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee2Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. ·JAMA Oncol · Pubmed #26181188.

ABSTRACT: Over the past several years, management of advanced melanoma has been transformed by the development and approval of novel therapeutic approaches. Genetically targeted therapies are now effective treatment options for the approximately 50% of patients whose melanomas harbor activating point mutations in BRAF. Combination regimens of small-molecule inhibitors have been developed to delay the onset of acquired resistance. Specifically, combined BRAF and MEK inhibition improves response rates and survival compared with single-agent BRAF inhibitors and has now received regulatory approval. During the same time frame, excitement has surrounded the development of immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors. New immune checkpoint inhibitors blocking cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA4) or programmed death-1 receptor/ligand (PD-1/PD-L1) improve patient outcomes by promoting an antitumor immune response. These agents have been associated with an increasing number of durable responses and are being developed in various combinations. In this review, we discuss the development of these targeted and immune therapies, review current patient management, and highlight future directions.

9 Review Trametinib in the treatment of melanoma. 2015

Thota, Ramya / Johnson, Douglas B / Sosman, Jeffrey A. ·Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Medicine , 777 PRB, 2220 Pierce Ave, Nashville, TN 37232 , USA +1 615 322 8131 ; +1 615 343 7602 ; jeff.sosman@Vanderbilt.Edu. ·Expert Opin Biol Ther · Pubmed #25812921.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Aberrant MAPK pathway signaling is a hallmark of melanoma. Mitogen/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK) 1/2 are integral components of MAPK signaling. Several MEK inhibitors have demonstrated activity as single agents and in combination with other therapies. Trametinib was the first MEK inhibitor approved for use in treatment of advanced BRAF(V600) mutant melanoma as a single agent and in combination with BRAF inhibitor, dabrafenib. AREAS COVERED: In this article, we discuss the underlying biology of MEK inhibition and its rationale in melanoma treatment with special emphasis on the clinical development of trametinib, from initial Phase I studies to randomized Phase II and III studies, both as monotherapy and in combination with other therapeutics. Furthermore, we briefly comment on trametinib for NRAS mutant and other non-BRAF mutant subsets of melanoma. EXPERT OPINION: Trametinib is a novel oral MEK inhibitor with clinical activity in BRAF(V600) mutant metastatic melanoma alone and in combination with dabrafenib. Trametinib is currently being explored in other genetic subsets as well, particularly those with NRAS mutations or atypical BRAF alterations. Furthermore, to maximize efficacy and overcome acquired resistance, studies evaluating the combination of trametinib with other targeted agents and immunotherapy are underway.

10 Review Molecular pathways: targeting NRAS in melanoma and acute myelogenous leukemia. 2014

Johnson, Douglas B / Smalley, Keiran S M / Sosman, Jeffrey A. ·Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and douglas.b.johnson@vanderbilt.edu. · Departments of Molecular Oncology and Cutaneous Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #24895460.

ABSTRACT: Successful targeting of specific oncogenic "driver" mutations with small-molecule inhibitors has represented a major advance in cancer therapeutics over the past 10 to 15 years. The most common activating oncogene in human malignancy, RAS (rat sarcoma), has proved to be an elusive target. Activating mutations in RAS induce mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase-AKT pathway signaling and drive malignant progression in up to 30% of cancers. Oncogenic NRAS mutations occur in several cancer types, notably melanoma, acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), and less commonly, colon adenocarcinoma, thyroid carcinoma, and other hematologic malignancies. Although NRAS-mutant tumors have been recalcitrant to targeted therapeutic strategies historically, newer agents targeting MAP/ERK kinase 1 (MEK1)/2 have recently shown signs of clinical efficacy as monotherapy. Combination strategies of MEK inhibitors with other targeted agents have strong preclinical support and are being evaluated in clinical trials. This review discusses the recent preclinical and clinical studies about the role of NRAS in cancer, with a focus on melanoma and AML.

11 Review Beyond histology: translating tumor genotypes into clinically effective targeted therapies. 2014

Meador, Catherine B / Micheel, Christine M / Levy, Mia A / Lovly, Christine M / Horn, Leora / Warner, Jeremy L / Johnson, Douglas B / Zhao, Zhongming / Anderson, Ingrid A / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Vnencak-Jones, Cindy L / Dahlman, Kimberly B / Pao, William. ·Authors' Affiliations: Departments of Cancer Biology, Medicine, Biomedical Informatics, and Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. ·Clin Cancer Res · Pubmed #24599935.

ABSTRACT: Increased understanding of intertumoral heterogeneity at the genomic level has led to significant advancements in the treatment of solid tumors. Functional genomic alterations conferring sensitivity to targeted therapies can take many forms, and appropriate methods and tools are needed to detect these alterations. This review provides an update on genetic variability among solid tumors of similar histologic classification, using non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma as examples. We also discuss relevant technological platforms for discovery and diagnosis of clinically actionable variants and highlight the implications of specific genomic alterations for response to targeted therapy.

12 Review Update on the targeted therapy of melanoma. 2013

Johnson, Douglas B / Sosman, Jeffrey A. ·Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, 2220 Pierce Ave. 777 Preston Research Building, Nashville, TN 37232-6307, USA. douglas.b.johnson@vanderbilt.edu ·Curr Treat Options Oncol · Pubmed #23420410.

ABSTRACT: Melanoma is the most aggressive of the cutaneous malignancies, causing more than 9,000 deaths in the past year in the United States. Historically, systemic therapies have been largely ineffective, because melanoma is usually resistant to cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, during the past few years, several targeted therapies have proved effective in this challenging disease. These recent advances have been facilitated by an improved understanding of the driving genetic aberrations of melanoma, particularly mutations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. Vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, demonstrated an overall survival advantage in phase III trials and is an appropriate option for first-line therapy in metastatic BRAF mutant melanoma. Dabrafenib, another BRAF inhibitor, and trametinib, a MEK inhibitor, also have been shown to be effective in phase III trials for BRAF mutant melanoma and may be additional treatment options as monotherapy or in combination pending regulatory approval. Additionally, imatinib is a promising targeted therapy for patients whose tumors harbor a KIT mutation in exons 11 and 13. Although these targeted agents cause objective responses and clinical benefit in patients with metastatic melanoma, resistance invariably develops. New targets and strategies to overcome acquired resistance are urgently needed. Furthermore, no effective targeted therapy has been developed for NRAS mutant tumors or in melanomas with as yet unknown driver mutations. In this review, we discuss current molecular targeted treatment options and promising ongoing research to develop new strategies to treat melanoma.

13 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.

14 Review Aberrant DNA methylation in malignant melanoma. 2010

Schinke, Carolina / Mo, Yongkai / Yu, Yiting / Amiri, Kathy / Sosman, Jeff / Greally, John / Verma, Amit. ·Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA. ·Melanoma Res · Pubmed #20418788.

ABSTRACT: Malignant melanoma remains one of the most deadly human cancers with no effective cures for metastatic disease. The poor efficacy of current therapy in advanced melanoma highlights the need for better understanding of molecular mechanisms contributing to the disease. Recent work has shown that epigenetic changes, including aberrant DNA methylation, lead to alterations in gene expression and are as important in the development of malignant melanoma as the specific and well-characterized genetic events. Reversion of these methylation patterns could thus lead to a more targeted therapy and are currently under clinical investigation. The purpose of this review is to compile recent information on aberrant DNA methylation of melanoma, to highlight key genes and molecular pathways in melanoma development, which have been found to be epigenetically altered and to provide insight as to how DNA methylation might serve as targeted treatment option as well as a molecular and prognostic marker in malignant melanoma.

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

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

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

16 Clinical Trial Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Melanoma Who Received Nivolumab Versus Investigator's Choice Chemotherapy in CheckMate 037: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-Label Phase III Trial. 2018

Larkin, James / Minor, David / D'Angelo, Sandra / Neyns, Bart / Smylie, Michael / Miller, Wilson H / Gutzmer, Ralf / Linette, Gerald / Chmielowski, Bartosz / Lao, Christopher D / Lorigan, Paul / Grossmann, Kenneth / Hassel, Jessica C / Sznol, Mario / Daud, Adil / Sosman, Jeffrey / Khushalani, Nikhil / Schadendorf, Dirk / Hoeller, Christoph / Walker, Dana / Kong, George / Horak, Christine / Weber, Jeffrey. ·James Larkin, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London · Paul Lorigan, The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom · David Minor, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute · Adil Daud, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco · Bartosz Chmielowski, University of California, Santa Monica, CA · Sandra D'Angelo, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College · Jeffrey Weber, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University-Langone Medical Center, New York · Nikhil Khushalani, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY · Gerald Linette, Washington University, St. Louis, MO · Christopher D. Lao, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI · Kenneth Grossmann, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT · Mario Sznol, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, CT · Jeffrey Sosman, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL · Dana Walker, George Kong, and Christine Horak, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ · Bart Neyns, University Hospital, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium · Michael Smylie, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta · Wilson H. Miller Jr, Jewish General Hospital and Segal Cancer Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebc, Canada · Ralf Gutzmer, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover · Jessica C. Hassel, Nationale Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen Heidelberg, Heidelberg · Dirk Schadendorf, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany · and Christoph Hoeller, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #28671856.

ABSTRACT: Purpose Until recently, limited options existed for patients with advanced melanoma who experienced disease progression while receiving treatment with ipilimumab. Here, we report the coprimary overall survival (OS) end point of CheckMate 037, which has previously shown that nivolumab resulted in more patients achieving an objective response compared with chemotherapy regimens in ipilimumab-refractory patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 expression, BRAF status, and best prior cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy response, then randomly assigned 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (ICC; dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m

17 Clinical Trial Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. 2017

Wolchok, Jedd D / Chiarion-Sileni, Vanna / Gonzalez, Rene / Rutkowski, Piotr / Grob, Jean-Jacques / Cowey, C Lance / Lao, Christopher D / Wagstaff, John / Schadendorf, Dirk / Ferrucci, Pier F / Smylie, Michael / Dummer, Reinhard / Hill, Andrew / Hogg, David / Haanen, John / Carlino, Matteo S / Bechter, Oliver / Maio, Michele / Marquez-Rodas, Ivan / Guidoboni, Massimo / McArthur, Grant / Lebbé, Celeste / Ascierto, Paolo A / Long, Georgina V / Cebon, Jonathan / Sosman, Jeffrey / Postow, Michael A / Callahan, Margaret K / Walker, Dana / Rollin, Linda / Bhore, Rafia / Hodi, F Stephen / Larkin, James. ·From the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York (J.D.W., M.A.P., M.K.C.) · Oncology Institute of Veneto Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Padua (V.C.-S.), European Institute of Oncology, Milan (P.F.F.), Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Siena (M.M.), the Immunotherapy and Somatic Cell Therapy Unit, IRCCS Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Meldola (M.G.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) - all in Italy · University of Colorado, Denver (R.G.) · Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.) · Aix-Marseille University, Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille (J.-J.G.), and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Dermatology and Centres d'Investigation Clinique, INSERM Unité 976, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université Paris Diderot, Paris (C.L.) - both in France · Texas Oncology-Baylor Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.) · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (C.D.L.) · the College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea (J.W.), and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London (J.L.) - both in the United Kingdom · the Department of Dermatology, University of Essen, Essen, and the German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg - both in Germany (D.S.) · Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB (M.S.), and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto (D.H.) - both in Canada · Universitäts Spital, Zurich, Switzerland (R.D.) · Tasman Oncology Research, Southport Gold Coast, QLD (A.H.), Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney (M.S.C.), and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, and Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals (G.V.L.), Sydney, and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (G.M.) and the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, University of Melbourne (J.C.), Melbourne, VIC - all in Australia · Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam (J.H.) · University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (O.B.) · General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid (I.M.-R.) · Northwestern University, Chicago (J.S.) · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (D.W., L.R., R.B.) · and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston (F.S.H.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #28889792.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).

18 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.

19 Clinical Trial Phase III Randomized Study of 4 Weeks of High-Dose Interferon-α-2b in Stage T2bNO, T3a-bNO, T4a-bNO, and T1-4N1a-2a (microscopic) Melanoma: A Trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group (E1697). 2017

Agarwala, Sanjiv S / Lee, Sandra J / Yip, Waiki / Rao, Uma N / Tarhini, Ahmad A / Cohen, Gary I / Reintgen, Douglas S / Evans, Terry L / Brell, Joanna M / Albertini, Mark R / Atkins, Michael B / Dakhil, Shaker R / Conry, Robert M / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Flaherty, Lawrence E / Sondak, Vernon K / Carson, William E / Smylie, Michael G / Pappo, Alberto S / Kefford, Richard F / Kirkwood, John M. ·Sanjiv S. Agarwala, Saint Luke's University Hospital, Easton · Uma N. Rao, Ahmad A. Tarhini, Terry L. Evans, and John M. Kirkwood, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA · Sandra J. Lee, and Waiki Yip, Dana Farber Cancer Institute-ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Boston, MA · Gary I. Cohen, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, MD · Douglas S. Reintgen, Lakeland Regional Cancer Center, Lakeland · Vernon K. Sondak, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL · Joanna M. Brell, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland · William E. Carson, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH · Mark R. Albertini, University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, WI · Michael B. Atkins, Georgetown Medical Center, Washington, DC · Shaker R. Dakhil, Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS · Robert M. Conry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL · Jeffrey A. Sosman, Vanderbilt University, Nashville · Alberto S. Pappo, Saint Jude Children's Research Hospital Oncology, Memphis, TN · Lawrence E. Flaherty, Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI · Michael G. Smylie, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Canada · and Richard F. Kefford, Sydney West Area Health Service, Westmead, Australia. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #28135150.

ABSTRACT: Purpose To test the efficacy of 4 weeks of intravenous (IV) induction with high-dose interferon (IFN) as part of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group regimen compared with observation (OBS) in patients with surgically resected intermediate-risk melanoma. Patients and Methods In this intergroup international trial, eligible patients had surgically resected cutaneous melanoma in the following categories: (1) T2bN0, (2) T3a-bN0, (3) T4a-bN0, and (4) T1-4N1a-2a (microscopic). Patients were randomly assigned to receive IFN α-2b at 20 MU/m

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

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

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

21 Clinical Trial A phase I dose-escalation study of TAK-733, an investigational oral MEK inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. 2017

Adjei, Alex A / LoRusso, Patricia / Ribas, Antoni / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Pavlick, Anna / Dy, Grace K / Zhou, Xiaofei / Gangolli, Esha / Kneissl, Michelle / Faucette, Stephanie / Neuwirth, Rachel / Bózon, Viviana. ·Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St, SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Adjei.Alex@Mayo.edu. · Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. Adjei.Alex@Mayo.edu. · Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. · University of California at Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. · Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. · Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Cambridge, MA, USA. · AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Waltham, MA, USA. · Present address: Array BioPharma Inc., Boulder, CO, USA. ·Invest New Drugs · Pubmed #27650277.

ABSTRACT: Purpose TAK-733, an investigational, selective, allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor effects against multiple cancer cell lines and xenograft models. This first-in-human study investigated TAK-733 in patients with solid tumors. Methods Patients received oral TAK-733 once daily on days 1-21 in 28-day treatment cycles. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for AEs version 3.0. Response was assessed using RECIST v1.1. Blood samples for TAK-733 pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (inhibition of ERK phosphorylation) were collected during cycle 1. Results Fifty-one patients received TAK-733 0.2-22 mg. Primary diagnoses included uveal melanoma (24 %), colon cancer (22 %), and cutaneous melanoma (10 %). Four patients had dose-limiting toxicities of dermatitis acneiform, plus fatigue and pustular rash in one patient, and stomatitis in one patient. The maximum tolerated dose was 16 mg. Common drug-related AEs included dermatitis acneiform (51 %), diarrhea (29 %), and increased blood creatine phosphokinase (20 %); grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported in 27 (53 %) patients. Median T

22 Clinical Trial Sequential administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab with a planned switch in patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 064): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. 2016

Weber, Jeffrey S / Gibney, Geoff / Sullivan, Ryan J / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Slingluff, Craig L / Lawrence, Donald P / Logan, Theodore F / Schuchter, Lynn M / Nair, Suresh / Fecher, Leslie / Buchbinder, Elizabeth I / Berghorn, Elmer / Ruisi, Mary / Kong, George / Jiang, Joel / Horak, Christine / Hodi, F Stephen. ·New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. · H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA; Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA. · Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. · University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA. · Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA. · University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA, USA. · Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. · Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: stephen_hodi@dfci.harvard.edu. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #27269740.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

23 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.

24 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 --

25 Clinical Trial Phase 2 study of sunitinib in patients with metastatic mucosal or acral melanoma. 2015

Buchbinder, Elizabeth I / Sosman, Jeffrey A / Lawrence, Donald P / McDermott, David F / Ramaiya, Nikhil H / Van den Abbeele, Annick D / Linette, Gerald P / Giobbie-Hurder, Anita / Hodi, F Stephen. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Hematology-Oncology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. · Hematology-Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Hematology-Oncology, Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. · Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Hematology-Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. · Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. ·Cancer · Pubmed #26264378.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patients with mucosal and acral melanomas have limited treatment options and a poor prognosis. Mutations of the KIT oncogene in these melanoma subtypes provide a potential therapeutic target. METHODS: A multicenter phase 2 trial of sunitinib was conducted in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma of a mucosal or acral primary origin. Patients were treated in 2 cohorts: cohort A received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily for 4 weeks of a 6-week cycle, and cohort B received sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg daily on a continuous basis. Dose reductions were permitted for treatment-related toxicities, and tumor assessments were performed every 2 months. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled: 21 in cohort A and 31 in cohort B. Four patients had confirmed partial responses, which lasted 5 to 10 months (1 with a KIT mutation). In both cohorts, the proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 2 months was 52% (95% confidence interval, 38%-66%); this was significantly larger than the hypothesized null of 5%. There was no significant difference in response or overall survival between the 25% of patients with a KIT mutation and those without one (response rate, 7.7% vs 9.7%; overall survival, 6.4 vs 8.6 months). The overall disease control rate was 44%, and a high rate of toxicity was associated with the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib showed activity in the treatment of mucosal and acral melanoma that was not dependent on the presence of a KIT mutation. However, the medication was poorly tolerated, and there were no prolonged responses. Cancer 2015;121:4007-4015. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Next