SummaryBackgroundImmunotherapy combination treatments can improve patient outcomes. Epacadostat, an IDO1 selective inhibitor, and pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, showed promising antitumour activity ...in the phase 1–2 ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study in advanced melanoma. In this trial, we aimed to compare progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. MethodsIn this international, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma previously untreated with PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and had a known BRAFV600 mutant status or consented to BRAFV600 mutation testing during screening. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression and BRAFV600 mutation status and randomly assigned (1:1) through a central interactive voice and integrated web response system to receive epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. We used block randomisation with a block size of four in each stratum. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis population included randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study was stopped after the second interim analysis; follow-up for safety is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02752074. FindingsBetween June 21, 2016, and Aug 7, 2017, 928 patients were screened and 706 patients were randomly assigned to receive epacadostat plus pembrolizumab (n=354) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n=352). Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·3–14·5). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups for progression-free survival (median 4·7 months, 95% CI 2·9–6·8, for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs 4·9 months, 2·9–6·8, for placebo plus pembrolizumab; hazard ratio HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; one-sided p=0·52) or overall survival (median not reached in either group; epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs placebo plus pembrolizumab: HR 1·13, 0·86–1·49; one-sided p=0·81). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase, which occurred in 14 (4%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11 (3%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 37 (10%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 32 (9%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in either treatment group. InterpretationEpacadostat 100 mg twice daily plus pembrolizumab did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival compared with placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The usefulness of IDO1 inhibition as a strategy to enhance anti-PD-1 therapy activity in cancer remains uncertain. FundingIncyte Corporation, in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme.
Summary Background Activating BRAFV600E (Val600Glu) mutations are found in about 1–2% of lung adenocarcinomas, which might provide an opportunity for targeted treatment in these patients. Dabrafenib ...is an oral selective inhibitor of BRAF kinase. We did a trial to assess the clinical activity of dabrafenib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for the BRAFV600E mutation. Methods In this phase 2, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, we enrolled previously treated and untreated patients with stage IV metastatic BRAFV600E -positive NSCLC. Patients received oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, which was assessed in patients who had received at least one dose of dabrafenib; safety was also assessed in this population. The study is ongoing but not enrolling patients in this cohort. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01336634. Findings Between Aug 3, 2011, and Feb 25, 2014, 84 patients were enrolled, six of whom had not previously received systemic treatment for NSCLC. 26 of the 78 previously treated patients achieved an investigator-assessed overall response (33% 95% CI 23–45). Four of the six previously untreated patients had an objective response. One patient died from an intracranial haemorrhage that was judged by the investigator to be due to the study drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 35 (42%) of 84 patients. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma in ten (12%), asthenia in four (5%), and basal-cell carcinoma in four (5%). Interpretation Dabrafenib showed clinical activity in BRAFV600E -positive NSCLC. Our findings suggest that dabrafenib could represent a treatment option for a population of patients with limited therapeutic options. Funding GlaxoSmithKline.
Summary Background BRAF mutations act as an oncogenic driver via the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BRAF inhibition has shown antitumour ...activity in patients with BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC. Dual MAPK pathway inhibition with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC might improve efficacy over BRAF inhibitor monotherapy based on observations in BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma. We aimed to assess the antitumour activity and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC. Methods In this phase 2, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, we enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pretreated metastatic stage IV BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC who had documented tumour progression after at least one previous platinum-based chemotherapy and had had no more than three previous systemic anticancer therapies. Patients with previous BRAF or MEK inhibitor treatment were ineligible. Patients with brain metastases were allowed to enrol only if the lesions were asymptomatic, untreated (or stable more than 3 weeks after local therapy if treated), and measured less than 1 cm. Enrolled patients received oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) in continuous 21-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, which was assessed by intention to treat in the protocol-defined population (patients who received second-line or later treatment); safety was also assessed in this population and was assessed at least once every 3 weeks, with adverse events, laboratory values, and vital signs graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The study is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01336634. Findings Between Dec 20, 2013, and Jan 14, 2015, 59 patients from 30 centres in nine countries across North America, Europe, and Asia met eligibility criteria. Two patients who had previously been untreated due to protocol deviation were excluded; thus, 57 eligible patients were enrolled. 36 patients (63·2% 95% CI 49·3–75·6) achieved an investigator-assessed overall response. Serious adverse events were reported in 32 (56%) of 57 patients and included pyrexia in nine (16%), anaemia in three (5%), confusional state in two (4%), decreased appetite in two (4%), haemoptysis in two (4%), hypercalcaemia in two (4%), nausea in two (4%), and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in two (4%). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia in five patients (9%), hyponatraemia in four (7%), and anaemia in three (5%). Four patients died during the study from fatal adverse events judged to be unrelated to treatment (one retroperitoneal haemorrhage, one subarachnoid haemorrhage, one respiratory distress, and one from disease progression that was more severe than typical progression, as assessed by the investigator). Interpretation Dabrafenib plus trametinib could represent a new targeted therapy with robust antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC. Funding GlaxoSmithKline.
Summary Background Ceritinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, which has shown robust anti-tumour efficacy, along with intracranial activity, in patients with ALK ...-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. In phase 1 and 2 studies, ceritinib has been shown to be highly active in both ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients who had progressed after chemotherapy (mostly multiple lines). In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK -rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously progressed following crizotinib and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with ALK -rearranged stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (with at least one measurable lesion) who had received previous chemotherapy (one or two lines, including a platinum doublet) and crizotinib and had subsequent disease progression, from 99 centres across 20 countries. Other inclusion criteria were a WHO performance status of 0–2, adequate organ function and laboratory test results, a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and having recovered from previous anticancer treatment-related toxicities. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; with blocking block size of four; stratified by WHO performance status 0 vs 1–2 and presence or absence of brain metastases) to oral ceritinib 750 mg per day fasted (in 21 day treatment cycles) or chemotherapy (intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 investigator choice, every 21 days). Patients who discontinued chemotherapy because of progressive disease could cross over to the ceritinib group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, assessed every 6 weeks until month 18 and every 9 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01828112 , and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between June 28, 2013, and Nov 2, 2015, we randomly allocated 231 patients; 115 (50%) to ceritinib and 116 (50%) to chemotherapy (40 34% to pemetrexed, 73 63% to docetaxel, and three 3% discontinued before receiving treatment). Median follow-up was 16·5 months (IQR 11·5–21·4). Ceritinib showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy (5·4 months 95% CI 4·1–6·9 for ceritinib vs 1·6 months 1·4–2·8 for chemotherapy; hazard ratio 0·49 0·36–0·67; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported in 49 (43%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and 36 (32%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related serious adverse events were similar between groups (13 11% in the ceritinib group vs 12 11% in the chemotherapy group). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events in the ceritinib group were increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (24 21% of 115 vs two 2% of 113 in the chemotherapy group), increased γ glutamyltransferase concentration (24 21% vs one 1%), and increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (16 14% vs one 1% in the chemotherapy group). Six (5%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group discontinued because of adverse events compared with eight (7%) of 116 in the chemotherapy group. 15 (13%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and five (4%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group died during the treatment period (from the day of the first dose of study treatment to 30 days after the final dose). 13 (87%) of the 15 patients who died in the ceritinib group died because of disease progression and two (13%) died because of an adverse event (one 7% cerebrovascular accident and one 7% respiratory failure); neither of these deaths were considered by the investigator to be treatment related. The five (4%) deaths in the chemotherapy group were all due to disease progression. Interpretation These findings show that patients derive significant clinical benefit from a more potent ALK inhibitor after failure of crizotinib, and establish ceritinib as a more efficacious treatment option compared with chemotherapy in this patient population. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
PDF
