Summary Background Previously, a study of ours showed that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib improves progression-free survival compared with dabrafenib and placebo in patients with BRAF ...Val600Lys/Glu mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. The study was continued to assess the secondary endpoint of overall survival, which we report in this Article. Methods We did this double-blind phase 3 study at 113 sites in 14 countries. We enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Participants were computer-randomised (1:1) to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily), or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and overall survival was a secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01584648. Findings Between May 4, 2012, and Nov 30, 2012, we screened 947 patients for eligibility, of whom 423 were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib and trametinib (n=211) or dabrafenib only (n=212). The final data cutoff was Jan 12, 2015, at which time 222 patients had died. Median overall survival was 25·1 months (95% CI 19·2–not reached) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 18·7 months (15·2–23·7) in the dabrafenib only group (hazard ratio HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·55–0·92; p=0·0107). Overall survival was 74% at 1 year and 51% at 2 years in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 68% and 42%, respectively, in the dabrafenib only group. Based on 301 events, median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 8·0–13·9) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 8·8 months (5·9–9·3) in the dabrafenib only group (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·53–0·84; p=0·0004; unadjusted for multiple testing). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 181 (87%) of 209 patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 189 (90%) of 211 patients in the dabrafenib only group; the most common was pyrexia (108 patients, 52%) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group, and hyperkeratosis (70 patients, 33%) in the dabrafenib only group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 67 (32%) patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 66 (31%) patients in the dabrafenib only group. Interpretation The improvement in overall survival establishes the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib as the standard targeted treatment for BRAF Val600 mutation-positive melanoma. Studies assessing dabrafenib and trametinib in combination with immunotherapies are ongoing. Funding GlaxoSmithKline.
Summary Background Previous trials from our group suggested an overall survival benefit with five cycles of adjuvant full-dose epirubicin plus ifosfamide in localised high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma of ...the extremities or trunk wall, and no difference in overall survival benefit between three cycles versus five cycles of the same neoadjuvant regimen. We aimed to show the superiority of the neoadjuvant administration of histotype-tailored regimen to standard chemotherapy. Methods For this international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, multicentre trial, patients were enrolled from 32 hospitals in Italy, Spain, France, and Poland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with localised, high-risk (high malignancy grade, 5 cm or longer in diameter, and deeply located according to the investing fascia), soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities or trunk wall and belonging to one of five histological subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three cycles of full-dose standard chemotherapy (epirubicin 60 mg/m2 per day short infusion, days 1 and 2 plus ifosfamide 3 g/m2 per day days 1, 2, and 3, repeated every 21 days) or histotype-tailored chemotherapy: for high-grade myxoid liposarcoma, trabectedin 1·3 mg/m2 via 24-h continuous infusion, repeated every 21 days; for leiomyosarcoma, gemcitabine 1800 mg/m2 on day 1 intravenously over 180 min plus dacarbazine 500 mg/m2 on day 1 intravenously over 20 min, repeated every 14 days; for synovial sarcoma, high-dose ifosfamide 14 g/m2 , given over 14 days via an external infusion pump, every 28 days; for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, intravenous etoposide 150 mg/m2 per day (days 1, 2, and 3) plus intravenous ifosfamide 3 g/m2 per day (days 1, 2, and 3), repeated every 21 days; and for undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 intravenously over 90 min plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 intravenously over 1 h, repeated every 21 days. Randomisation was stratified by administration of preoperative radiotherapy and by country of enrolment. Computer-generated random lists were prepared by use of permuted balanced blocks of size 4 and 6 in random sequence. An internet-based randomisation system ensured concealment of the treatment assignment until the patient had been registered into the system. No masking of treatment assignments was done. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The primary and safety analyses were planned in the intention-to-treat population. We did yearly futility analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01710176 , and with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials, number EUDRACT 2010–023484–17, and is closed to patient entry. Findings Between May 19, 2011, and May 13, 2016, 287 patients were randomly assigned to a group (145 to standard chemotherapy and 142 to histotype-tailored chemotherapy), all of whom, except one patient assigned to standard chemotherapy, were included in the efficacy analysis (97 34% with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma; 64 22% with high-grade myxoid liposarcoma; 70 24% with synovial sarcoma; 27 9% with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour; and 28 10% with leiomyosarcoma). At the third futility analysis, with a median follow-up of 12·3 months (IQR 2·75–28·20), the projected disease-free survival at 46 months was 62% (95% CI 48–77) in the standard chemotherapy group and 38% (22–55) in the histotype-tailored chemotherapy group (stratified log-rank p=0·004; hazard ratio 2·00, 95% CI 1·22–3·26; p=0·006). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in the standard chemotherapy group (n=125) were neutropenia (107 86%), anaemia (24 19%), and thrombocytopenia (21 17%); the most common grade 3 or higher adverse event in the histotype-tailored chemotherapy group (n=114) was neutropenia (30 26%). No treatment-related deaths were reported in both groups. In agreement with the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, the study was closed to patient entry after the third futility analysis. Interpretation In a population of patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma, we did not show any benefit of a neoadjuvant histotype-tailored chemotherapy regimen over the standard chemotherapy regimen. The benefit seen with the standard chemotherapy regimen suggests that this benefit might be the added value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy itself in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma. Funding European Union grant (Eurosarc FP7 278472).
Summary Background Ipilimumab is an approved treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. We aimed to assess ipilimumab as adjuvant therapy for patients with completely resected stage III melanoma ...at high risk of recurrence. Methods We did a double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) with adequate resection of lymph nodes (ie, the primary cutaneous melanoma must have been completely excised with adequate surgical margins) who had not received previous systemic therapy for melanoma from 91 hospitals located in 19 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), centrally by an interactive voice response system, to receive intravenous infusions of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab or placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geographical region. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival, assessed by an independent review committee, and analysed by intention to treat. Enrollment is complete but the study is ongoing for follow-up for analysis of secondary endpoints. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2007-001974-10, and ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00636168. Findings Between July 10, 2008, and Aug 1, 2011, 951 patients were randomly assigned to ipilimumab (n=475) or placebo (n=476), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. At a median follow-up of 2·74 years (IQR 2·28–3·22), there were 528 recurrence-free survival events (234 in the ipilimumab group vs 294 in the placebo group). Median recurrence-free survival was 26·1 months (95% CI 19·3–39·3) in the ipilimumab group versus 17·1 months (95% CI 13·4–21·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·75; 95% CI 0·64–0·90; p=0·0013); 3-year recurrence-free survival was 46·5% (95% CI 41·5–51·3) in the ipilimumab group versus 34·8% (30·1–39·5) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3–4 immune-related adverse events in the ipilimumab group were gastrointestinal (75 16% vs four <1% in the placebo group), hepatic (50 11% vs one <1%), and endocrine (40 8% vs none). Adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in 245 (52%) of 471 patients who started ipilimumab (182 39% during the initial treatment period of four doses). Five patients (1%) died due to drug-related adverse events. Five (1%) participants died because of drug-related adverse events in the ipilimumab group; three patients died because of colitis (two with gastrointestinal perforation), one patient because of myocarditis, and one patient because of multiorgan failure with Guillain-Barré syndrome. Interpretation Adjuvant ipilimumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival for patients with completely resected high-risk stage III melanoma. The adverse event profile was consistent with that observed in advanced melanoma, but at higher incidences in particular for endocrinopathies. The risk–benefit ratio of adjuvant ipilimumab at this dose and schedule requires additional assessment based on distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival endpoints to define its definitive value. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Background A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg ...in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit–risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. Methods This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01515189. Findings Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6–42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9–29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6–17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9–13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70–0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 10% of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 6% of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 5% vs nine 2%), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 3% vs two 1%), and hypophysitis (ten 3% vs seven 2%). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. Interpretation In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Background Results of previous study showed promising but short-lived activity of sorafenib in the treatment of patients with unresectable advanced and metastatic osteosarcoma. This treatment ...failure has been attributed to the mTOR pathway and might therefore be overcome with the addition of mTOR inhibitors. We aimed to investigate the activity of sorafenib in combination with everolimus in patients with inoperable high-grade osteosarcoma progressing after standard treatment. Methods We did this non-randomised phase 2 trial in three Italian Sarcoma Group centres. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) with relapsed or unresectable osteosarcoma progressing after standard treatment (methotrexate, cisplatin, and doxorubicin, with or without ifosfamide). Patients received 800 mg sorafenib plus 5 mg everolimus once a day until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was 6 month progression-free survival (PFS). All analyses were intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01804374. Findings We enrolled 38 patients between June 16, 2011, and June 4, 2013. 17 (45%; 95% CI 28–61) of 38 patients were progression free at 6 months. Toxic effects led to dose reductions, or short interruptions, or both in 25 (66%) of 38 patients and permanent discontinuation for two (5%) patients. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were lymphopenia and hypophosphataemia each in six (16%) patients, hand and foot syndrome in five (13%), thrombocytopenia in four (11%), and fatigue, oral mucositis, diarrhoea, and anaemia each in two (5%). One patient (3%) had a grade 3 pneumothorax that required trans-thoracic drainage, and that recurred at the time of disease progression. This was reported as a serious adverse event related to the study drugs in both instances. No other serious adverse events were reported during the trial. There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Although the combination of sorafenib and everolimus showed activity as a further-line treatment for patients with advanced or unresectable osteosarcoma, it did not attain the prespecified target of 6 month PFS of 50% or greater. Funding Italian Sarcoma Group.
Summary Background The EORTC 18071 phase 3 trial compared adjuvant ipilimumab with placebo in patients with stage III melanoma. The primary endpoint, recurrence-free survival, was significantly ...longer in the ipilimumab group than in the placebo group. Investigator-reported toxic effects of ipilimumab consisted mainly of skin, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and hepatic immune-related adverse events. Adjuvant treatment with ipilimumab in this setting was approved in October, 2014, by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the results of the primary outcome of this trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), of this trial. Methods EORTC 18071 was a multinational, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma (excluding lymph node metastasis ≤1 mm or in-transit metastasis) in 19 countries worldwide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by an interactive voice response system, to receive either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for four doses, then every 3 months for up to 3 years. Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geographical region. HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality-of-life instrument at baseline, weeks 4, 7, 10, and 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter up to 2 years, irrespective of disease progression. Results were summarised by timepoint and in a longitudinal manner in the intention-to-treat population. Two summary scores were calculated for each HRQoL scale: the average score reported during induction (ipilimumab or placebo at a dose of 10 mg/kg, administered as one single dose at the start of days 1, 22, 43, and 64—ie, four doses in 3 weeks), and the average score reported after induction. A predefined threshold of a 10 point difference between arms was considered clinically relevant. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the global health scale, with the predefined hypothesis of no clinically relevant differences after induction between groups. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2007-001974-10, and ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00636168. Findings Between July 10, 2008, and Aug 1, 2011, 951 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 475 in the ipilimumab group and 476 in the placebo group. Compliance with completing the HRQoL questionnaire was 893 (94%) of 951 patients at baseline, 693 (75%) of 924 at week 24, and 354 (51%) of 697 at week 108. Patient mean global health scores during (77·32 SD 17·36 vs 72·96 17·82; p=0·00011) and after induction (76·48 17·52 vs 72·32 18·60; p=0·00067) were statistically significantly different between groups but were not clinically relevant. Mean global health scores differed most between the groups at week 7 (77 SD 19 in the placebo group vs 72 22 in the ipilimumab group) and week 10 (77 20 vs 70 23). Mean HRQoL scores differed by more than 10 points at week 10 between treatment groups for diarrhoea (7·67 SD 17·05 for placebo vs 18·17 28·35 for ipilimumab) and insomnia (15·17 22·53 vs 25·60 29·19). Interpretation Despite increased toxicity, which led to treatment discontinuation for most patients during the induction phase of ipilimumab administration, overall HRQoL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, was similar between groups, as no clinically relevant differences (10 points or more) in global health status scores were observed during or after induction. Clinically relevant deterioration for some symptoms was observed at week 10, but after induction, no clinically relevant differences remained. Together with the primary analysis, results from this trial show that treatment with ipilimumab results in longer recurrence-free survival compared with that for treatment with placebo, with little impairment in HRQoL despite grade 3–4 investigator-reported adverse events. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
PDF
