Summary Background Patients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAFV600 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 BRAFV600 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 BRAFV600 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.
Summary Background The Hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib has shown clinical benefit in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma and is approved for treatment of patients with advanced basal ...cell carcinoma for whom surgery is inappropriate. STEVIE was designed to assess the safety of vismodegib in a situation similar to routine practice, with a long follow-up. Methods In this multicentre, open-label trial, adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced basal cell carcinoma or metastatic basal cell carcinoma were recruited from regional referral centres or specialist clinics. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2, and adequate organ function. Patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma had to have been deemed ineligible for surgery. All patients received 150 mg oral vismodegib capsules once a day on a continuous basis in 28-day cycles. The primary objective was safety (incidence of adverse events until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects), with assessments on day 1 of each treatment cycle (28 days) by principal investigator and coinvestigators at the site. Efficacy variables were assessed as secondary endpoints. The safety evaluable population included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Patients with histologically confirmed basal cell carcinoma who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the efficacy analysis. An interim analysis was pre-planned after 500 patients achieved 1 year of follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01367665 . The study is still ongoing. Findings Between June 30, 2011, and Nov 6, 2014, we enrolled 1227 patients. At clinical cutoff (Nov 6, 2013), 499 patients (468 with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and 31 with metastatic basal cell carcinoma) had received study drug and had the potential to be followed up for 12 months or longer. Treatment was discontinued in 400 (80%) patients; 180 (36%) had adverse events, 70 (14%) had progressive disease, and 51 (10%) requested to stop treatment. Median duration of vismodegib exposure was 36·4 weeks (IQR 17·7–62·0). Adverse events happened in 491 (98%) patients; the most common were muscle spasms (317 64%), alopecia (307 62%), dysgeusia (269 54%), weight loss (162 33%), asthenia (141 28%), decreased appetite (126 25%), ageusia (112 22%), diarrhoea (83 17%), nausea (80 16%), and fatigue (80 16%). Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. We recorded serious adverse events in 108 (22%) of 499 patients. Of the 31 patients who died, 21 were the result of adverse events. As assessed by investigators, 302 (66·7%, 62·1–71·0) of 453 patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma had an overall response (153 complete responses and 149 partial responses); 11 (37·9%; 20·7–57·7) of 29 patients with metastatic basal cell carcinoma had an overall response (two complete responses, nine partial responses). Interpretation This study assessed the use of vismodegib in a setting representative of routine clinical practice for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. Our results show that treatment with vismodegib adds a novel therapeutic modality from which patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma can benefit substantially. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Summary Background Treatments for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy are limited. We assessed safety and activity of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in ...patients with SCLC who progressed after one or more previous regimens. Methods The SCLC cohort of this phase 1/2 multicentre, multi-arm, open-label trial was conducted at 23 sites (academic centres and hospitals) in six countries. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older, had limited-stage or extensive-stage SCLC, and had disease progression after at least one previous platinum-containing regimen. Patients received nivolumab (3 mg/kg bodyweight intravenously) every 2 weeks (given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg plus 3 mg/kg, or 3 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, intravenously) every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were either assigned to nivolumab monotherapy or assessed in a dose-escalating safety phase for the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination beginning at nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Depending on tolerability, patients were then assigned to nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All analyses included patients who were enrolled at least 90 days before database lock. This trial is ongoing; here, we report an interim analysis of the SCLC cohort. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01928394. Findings Between Nov 18, 2013, and July 28, 2015, 216 patients were enrolled and treated (98 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, three with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 61 with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 54 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg). At database lock on Nov 6, 2015, median follow-up for patients continuing in the study (including those who had died or discontinued treatment) was 198·5 days (IQR 163·0–464·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg, 302 days (IQR not calculable) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 361·0 days (273·0–470·0) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 260·5 days (248·0–288·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. An objective response was achieved in ten (10%) of 98 patients receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg, one (33%) of three patients receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 14 (23%) of 61 receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and ten (19%) of 54 receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (13%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg cohort, 18 (30%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg cohort, and ten (19%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort; the most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (none vs 5 8% vs none) and diarrhoea (none vs 3 5% vs 1 2%). No patients in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event. Six (6%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg group, seven (11%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group, and four (7%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg group discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events. Two patients who received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg died from treatment-related adverse events (myasthenia gravis and worsening of renal failure), and one patient who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg died from treatment-related pneumonitis. Interpretation Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed antitumour activity with durable responses and manageable safety profiles in previously treated patients with SCLC. These data suggest a potential new treatment approach for a population of patients with limited treatment options and support the evaluation of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in phase 3 randomised controlled trials in SCLC. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
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 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.
Summary Background In the BRIM-3 trial, vemurafenib was associated with risk reduction versus dacarbazine of both death and progression in patients with advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. ...We present an extended follow-up analysis of the total population and in the BRAFV600E and BRAFV600K mutation subgroups. Methods Patients older than 18 years, with treatment-naive metastatic melanoma and whose tumour tissue was positive for BRAFV600 mutations were eligible. Patients also had to have a life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate haematological, hepatic, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned by interactive voice recognition system to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (n=675), with data censored at crossover. A sensitivity analysis was done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01006980. Findings 675 eligible patients were enrolled from 104 centres in 12 countries between Jan 4, 2010, and Dec 16, 2010. 337 patients were randomly assigned to receive vemurafenib and 338 to receive dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·7–16·0) on vemurafenib and 9·5 months (3·1–14·7) on dacarbazine. 83 (25%) of the 338 patients initially randomly assigned to dacarbazine crossed over from dacarbazine to vemurafenib. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the vemurafenib group than in the dacarbazine group (13·6 months 95% CI 12·0–15·2 vs 9·7 months 7·9–12·8; hazard ratio HR 0·70 95% CI 0·57–0·87; p=0·0008), as was median progression-free survival (6·9 months 95% CI 6·1–7·0 vs 1·6 months 1·6–2·1; HR 0·38 95% CI 0·32–0·46; p<0·0001). For the 598 (91%) patients with BRAFV600E disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·9–14·9) compared with 10·0 months (8·0–14·0) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·75 95% CI 0·60–0·93; p=0·0085); median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·2–7·0) and 1·6 months (1·6–2·1), respectively (HR 0·39 95% CI 0·33–0·47; p<0·0001). For the 57 (9%) patients with BRAFV600K disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 14·5 months (95% CI 11·2–not estimable) compared with 7·6 months (6·1–16·6) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·43 95% CI 0·21–0·90; p=0·024); median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·4–9·0) and 1·7 months (1·4–2·9), respectively (HR 0·30 95% CI 0·16–0·56; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3–4 events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (65 19% of 337 patients) and keratoacanthomas (34 10%), rash (30 9%), and abnormal liver function tests (38 11%) in the vemurafenib group and neutropenia (26 9% of 287 patients) in the dacarbazine group. Eight (2%) patients in the vemurafenib group and seven (2%) in the dacarbazine group had grade 5 events. Interpretation Inhibition of BRAF with vemurafenib improves survival in patients with the most common BRAFV600E mutation and in patients with the less common BRAFV600K mutation. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.
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 There are no established therapies specific for NRAS -mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor ...binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS -mutant melanoma. Methods NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS -mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance status, and previous immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one study drug dose and one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01763164 and with EudraCT, number 2012-003593-51. Findings Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4–4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8–3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5–1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 95% CI 0·47–0·80; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3–4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 19% of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 7% vs two 2%), anaemia (five 2% vs six 5%), and neutropenia (two 1% vs ten 9%). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. Interpretation Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS -mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. Funding Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
Summary Background The combination of cobimetinib with vemurafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo and vemurafenib in previously untreated patients with BRAFV600 -mutant ...advanced melanoma, as previously reported in the coBRIM study. In this Article, we report updated efficacy results, including overall survival and safety after longer follow-up, and selected biomarker correlative studies. Methods In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed BRAFV600 mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive response system to receive cobimetinib (60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day rest period in each 28-day cycle) or placebo, in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). Progression-free and overall survival were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; all analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01689519 , and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants. Findings Between Jan 8, 2013, and Jan 31, 2014, 495 eligible adult patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib group (n=247) or placebo plus vemurafenib group (n=248). At a median follow-up of 14·2 months (IQR 8·5–17·3), the updated investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·3 months (95% CI 9·5–13·4) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 7·2 months (5·6–7·5) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·58 95% CI 0·46–0·72, p<0·0001). The final analysis for overall survival occurred when 255 (52%) patients had died (Aug 28, 2015). Median overall survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·3–not estimable) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 17·4 months (95% CI 15·0–19·8) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55–0·90; p=0·005). The safety profile for cobimetinib and vemurafenib was tolerable and manageable, and no new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events occurring at a higher frequency in patients in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group compared with the vemurafenib group were γ-glutamyl transferase increase (36 15% in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group vs 25 10% in the placebo and vemurafenib group), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (30 12% vs one <1%), and alanine transaminase increase (28 11% vs 15 6%). Serious adverse events occurred in 92 patients (37%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 69 patients (28%) in the vemurafenib group. Pyrexia (six patients 2%) and dehydration (five patients 2%) were the most common serious adverse events reported in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group. A total of 259 patients have died: 117 (47%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 142 (58%) in the vemurafenib group. The primary cause of death was disease progression in most patients: 109 (93%) of 117 in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 133 (94%) of 142 in the vemurafenib group. Interpretation These data confirm the clinical benefit of cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib and support the use of the combination as a standard first-line approach to improve survival in patients with advanced BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche–Genentech.
Summary Background Patients with melanoma harbouring Val600 BRAF mutations benefit from treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, no targeted treatments exist for patients with BRAF wild-type tumours, ...including those with NRAS mutations. We aimed to assess the use of MEK162, a small-molecule MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with NRAS -mutated or Val600 BRAF -mutated advanced melanoma. Methods In our open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study, we assigned patients with NRAS -mutated or BRAF -mutated advanced melanoma to one of three treatment arms on the basis of mutation status. Patients were enrolled at university hospitals or private cancer centres in Europe and the USA. The three arms were: twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for NRAS -mutated melanoma, twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for BRAF -mutated melanoma, and twice-daily MEK162 60 mg for BRAF -mutated melanoma. Previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors was permitted, but previous MEK inhibitor therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective response (ie, a complete response or confirmed partial response). We report data for the 45 mg groups. We assessed clinical activity in all patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 and in patients assessable for response (with two available CT scans). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01320085 , and is currently recruiting additional patients with NRAS mutations (based on a protocol amendment). Findings Between March 31, 2011, and Jan 17, 2012, we enrolled 71 patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 45 mg. By Feb 29, 2012 (data cutoff), median follow-up was 3·3 months (range 0·6–8·7; IQR 2·2–5·0). No patients had a complete response. Six (20%) of 30 patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma had a partial response (three confirmed) as did eight (20%) of 41 patients with BRAF -mutated melanoma (two confirmed). The most frequent adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (18 60% patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and 15 37% patients with the BRAF -mutated melanoma), rash (six 20% and 16 39%), peripheral oedema (ten 33% and 14 34%), facial oedema (nine 30% and seven 17%), diarrhoea (eight 27% and 15 37%), and creatine phosphokinase increases (11 37% and nine 22%). Increased creatine phosphokinase was the most common grade 3–4 adverse event (seven 23% and seven 17%). Four patients had serious adverse events (two per arm), which included diarrhoea, dehydration, acneiform dermatitis, general physical deterioration, irregular heart rate, malaise, and small intestinal perforation. No deaths occurred from treatment-related causes. Interpretation To our knowledge, MEK162 is the first targeted therapy to show activity in patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and might offer a new option for a cancer with few effective treatments. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
PDF
