Search

Background: Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis.Methods: The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672.Findings: Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43-63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1-45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6-44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9-not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0-34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib.Interpretation: Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: BCD-021 is a bevacizumab biosimilar which was shown to be equivalent to reference bevacizumab in a wide panel of physicochemical studies as well as preclinical studies in vitro and in vivo. International multicenter phase III clinical trial was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of BCD-021 and reference bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in a first-line treatment of inoperable or advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: Patients with no previous treatment for advanced non-squamous NSCLC were randomly assigned 3:2 to BCD-021 or reference bevacizumab and were treated with bevacizumab + paclitaxel + carboplatin. Therapy continued for 6 cycles (every 3 weeks), until progression of the disease or unbearable toxicity. The primary study endpoint was the overall response rate. The study goal was to prove the equivalent efficacy of BCD-021 and reference bevacizumab. Equivalence margins for 95% CI for the difference in the overall response rates were set at [-18%; 18%], for 90% CI for the ratio of overall response rate were set at [67%; 150%].Results: In total 357 patients were enrolled in the study, 212 in the BCD-021 group and 145 in the reference bevacizumab group. The ORR was 34.63% in the BCD-022 group and 33.82% in the reference bevacizumab group. Limits of 95% CI for the difference in overall response rates between the groups were [-9.47%; 11.09%]. Limits of 90% CI for the ratio of overall response rate between the groups were [79.6%; 131.73%]. For both approaches CI lied within predetermined equivalence margins. Profile of adverse events (AEs) was similar between the groups (any AEs were reported in 86.89% of patients in BCD-021 group and 89.05% of patients in reference group). No unexpected adverse reactions were reported throughout the study. No statistically significant differences regarding anti-drug antibody occurrence rate was found between BCD-022 (n=4; 1.96%) and comparator (n=5; 3.65%). Both drug products showed low occurrence rate and short life of anti-bevacizumab antibodies. Pharmacokinetics assessment after 1st and 6th study drug injection also demonstrated equivalent PK parameters by all outcome measures.Conclusions: Thus, the results of this study demonstrated therapeutic equivalence of bevacizumab biosimilar BCD-021 and referent bevacizumab drug.Trial Registration: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Study Number NCT01763645, date of registration 09/01/2013). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: IMspire150 aimed to evaluate first-line combination treatment with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint therapy in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced or metastatic melanoma.Methods: IMspire150 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study done at 112 institutes in 20 countries. Patients with unresectable stage IIIc-IV, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to 28-day cycles of atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) or atezolizumab placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group). In cycle 1, all patients received vemurafenib and cobimetinib only; atezolizumab placebo was added from cycle 2 onward. Randomisation was stratified by lactate dehydrogenase concentration and geographical region. Blinding for atezolizumab was achieved by means of an identical intravenous placebo, and blinding for vemurafenib was achieved by means of a placebo tablet. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. This trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672) is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients.Findings: Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 777 patients were screened and 514 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (n=256) or control group (n=258). At a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8), progression-free survival as assessed by the study investigator was significantly prolonged with atezolizumab versus control (15·1 vs 10·6 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0·78; 95% CI 0·63-0·97; p=0·025). Common treatment-related adverse events (>30%) in the atezolizumab and control groups were blood creatinine phosphokinase increased (51·3% vs 44·8%), diarrhoea (42·2% vs 46·6%), rash (40·9%, both groups), arthralgia (39·1% vs 28·1%), pyrexia (38·7% vs 26·0%), alanine aminotransferase increased (33·9% vs 22·8%), and lipase increased (32·2% vs 27·4%); 13% of patients in the atezolizumab group and 16% in the control group stopped all treatment because of adverse events.Interpretation: The addition of atezolizumab to targeted therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable and significantly increased progression-free survival in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND In a previous phase 3 trial, treatment with trifluridine-tipiracil (FTD-TPI) pro-onged overall survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Prelimi-nary data from single-group and randomized phase 2 trials suggest that treatment with FTD-TPI in addition to bevacizumab has the potential to extend survival. METHODS We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adult patients who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for the treatrnent of advanced colorec-tal cancer to receive FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab (combination group) or FTD-TPI alone (FTD-TPI group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety, including the time to worsening of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) perforniance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more (on a scale from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). RESULTS A total of 246 patients were assigned to each group. The median overall survival was 10.8 months in the combination group and Z5 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval ICI], 0.49 to 0.77; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the combination group and 2.4 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.54; P<0.001). The most common adverse events in both groups were neutropenia, nausea, and anemia. No treatment-related deaths were reported. The median time to worsening of the ECOG performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more was 9.3 months in the combination group and 6.3 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.67). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, treatment with FTDTPI plus bevacizumab resulted in longer overall survival than FTD-TPI alone. (Funded by Servier and Taiho Oncology; SUNLIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04737187; EudraCT number, 2020-001976-14.1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In the phase III, open-label, randomised HannaH study, fixed-dose neoadjuvant–adjuvant subcutaneous trastuzumab for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer was non-inferior to standard weight-based intravenous infusion in terms of serum trough concentration and pathological complete response (pCR). Evidence suggests that pCR, particularly total pCR (tpCR), is likely to predict clinical benefit. We report associations between tpCR and event-free survival (EFS) from HannaH (the largest population from a single study of patients presenting with newly diagnosed HER2-positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant–adjuvant trastuzumab to date) plus long-term efficacy and safety. Methods Eligible patients received four cycles of neoadjuvant docetaxel followed by four cycles of fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide administered concurrently with 3-weekly subcutaneous (600 mg fixed dose) or intravenous trastuzumab (8 mg/kg loading, 6 mg/kg maintenance doses). Post-surgery, patients received adjuvant trastuzumab as randomised to complete 1 year of standard treatment. In exploratory analyses, we used Cox regression to assess associations between tpCR and EFS. EFS rates per subgroup were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Findings Three-year EFS rates were 76% for subcutaneous and 73% for intravenous trastuzumab (unstratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–1.30; intention-to-treat population). Three-year overall survival rates were 92% for subcutaneous and 90% for intravenous trastuzumab (unstratified HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44–1.32). tpCR was associated with a reduced risk of an EFS event: subcutaneous arm HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.22–0.65); intravenous arm HR 0.32 (95% CI 0.18–0.60). Results were similar for subgroups, including oestrogen receptor status. The few additional adverse events occurring during treatment-free follow-up were balanced between arms. Interpretation Long-term efficacy supports the established non-inferiority of subcutaneous trastuzumab, and its safety profile remains consistent with the known intravenous profile. In each of HannaH's treatment arms, tpCR was associated with improved EFS, adding to evidence that tpCR is associated with clinical benefit in HER2-positive early breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The analysis demonstrated that the starting dose of lenvatinib 14 mg is not noninferior to that of lenvatinib 18 mg (both with everolimus). Safety profiles were similar in both arms. Findings support lenvatinib 18 mg + everolimus 5 mg for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies. To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus. A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor–targeted therapy (prior anti–programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORR wk24); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization. The ORR wk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25–39]) was not noninferior to the ORR wk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27–42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59–1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms. The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC. In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To present the impact of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the double-blind, randomised phase III COMBI-d study that investigated the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-d showed significantly prolonged progression-free survival for the combination. Methods HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, a generic cancer questionnaire (completed at baseline, during study treatment, at progression and post progression) assessing various dimensions (global health/QoL, functional status, and symptom impact). A mixed-model, repeated-measures analyses of covariance evaluated differences between arms. Results Questionnaire completion rates were >95% at baseline, >85% to week 40 and >70% at disease progression. Baseline scores across both arms were comparable for all dimensions. Global health dimension scores were significantly better at weeks 8, 16 and 24 for patients receiving the combination during treatment and at progression. The majority of functional dimension scores (physical, social, role, emotional and cognitive functioning) trended in favour of the combination. Pain scores were significantly improved and clinically meaningful (6–13 point difference) for patients receiving the combination for all follow-up assessments versus those receiving dabrafenib monotherapy. For other symptom dimensions (nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, and constipation), scores trended in favour of dabrafenib monotherapy. Conclusion This analysis demonstrates that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib provides better preservation of HRQoL and pain improvements versus dabrafenib monotherapy while also delaying progression. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT01584648). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma with complete resection of lymph nodes. In the pembrolizumab group, the incidence of grade I–V and of grade III–V immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 37% and 7%, respectively. Patients were randomised to receive intravenous (i.v.) pembrolizumab 200 mg (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) every 3 weeks, up to 1 year. On recurrence, patients could enter part 2 of the study: pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks up to 2 years, for crossover (those who received placebo) or rechallenge (those who had recurrence ≥6 months after completing 1-year adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy). For these patients, we present the safety profile and efficacy outcomes. At the clinical cut-off (16-Oct-2020), in the placebo group, 298 patients had a disease recurrence, in which 155 (52%) crossed over ('crossover'). In the pembrolizumab group, 297 patients completed the 1-year treatment period; 47 had a recurrence ≥6 months later, in which 20 (43%) entered the rechallenge part 2 ('rechallenge'). In the crossover group, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7–15.2) and the 3-year PFS rate was 32% (95% CI 25–40%). Among 80 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 31 (39%) had an objective response: 14 (18%) patients with complete response (CR) and 17 (21%) patients with partial response. The 2-year PFS rate from response was 69% (95% CI 48–83%). In the rechallenge group, the median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 2.6–NE). Among 9 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 1 had an objective response (CR). Among the 175 patients, 51 (29%) had a grade I–IV irAE and 11 (6%) had a grade III–IV irAE. Pembrolizumab treatment after crossover yielded an overall 3-year PFS rate of 32% and a 39% ORR in evaluable patients, but the efficacy (11% ORR) was lower in those rechallenged. • Adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab prolongs RFS and DMFS in stage III melanoma. • The EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 adjuvant therapy trial has a formal crossover design. • Efficacy of pembrolizumab in relapsed placebo-treated patients was as expected. • Efficacy of pembrolizumab in relapsed pembrolizumab-treated patients was lower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The PI3K/AKT and androgen-receptor pathways are dysregulated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs); tumours with functional PTEN-loss status have hyperactivated AKT signalling. Dual pathway inhibition with AKT inhibitor ipatasertib plus abiraterone might have greater benefit than abiraterone alone. We aimed to compare ipatasertib plus abiraterone with placebo plus abiraterone in patients with previously untreated mCRPC with or without tumour PTEN loss.Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 200 sites across 26 countries or regions. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC who had progressive disease and Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1; permuted block method) to receive ipatasertib (400 mg once daily orally) plus abiraterone (1000 mg once daily orally) and prednisolone (5 mg twice a day orally) or placebo plus abiraterone and prednisolone (with the same dosing schedule). Patients received study treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal from the study, or study completion. Stratification factors were previous taxane-based therapy for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, type of progression, presence of visceral metastasis, and tumour PTEN-loss status by immunohistochemistry. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to the treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographical progression-free survival in the PTEN-loss-by-immunohistochemistry population and in the intention-to-treat population. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03072238.Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Jan 17, 2019, 1611 patients were screened for eligibility and 1101 (68%) were enrolled; 554 (50%) were assigned to the placebo-abiraterone group and 547 (50%) to the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. At data cutoff (March 16, 2020), median follow-up duration was 19 months (range 0-33). In the 521 (47%) patients who had tumours with PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry (261 in the placebo-abiraterone group and 260 in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group), median radiographical progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 13·9-17·0) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 18·5 months (16·3-22·1) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·61-0·98]; p=0·034; significant at α=0·04). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 15·6-19·1) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 19·2 months (16·5-22·3) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·043; not significant at α=0·01). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 213 (39%) of 546 patients in the placebo-abiraterone group and in 386 (70%) of 551 patients in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group; adverse events leading to discontinuation of placebo or ipatasertib occurred in 28 (5%) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 116 (21%) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. Deaths due to adverse events deemed related to treatment occurred in two patients (<1%; acute myocardial infarction [n=1] and lower respiratory tract infection [n=1]) in the placebo-abiraterone group and in two patients (<1%; hyperglycaemia [n=1] and chemical pneumonitis [n=1]) in the ipastasertb-abiraterone group.Interpretation: Ipatasertib plus abiraterone significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival compared with placebo plus abiraterone among patients with mCRPC with PTEN-loss tumours, but there was no significant difference between the groups in the intention-to-treat population. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of each agent. These data suggest that combined AKT and androgen-receptor signalling pathway inhibition with ipatasertib and abiraterone is a potential treatment for men with PTEN-loss mCRPC, a population with a poor prognosis.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the coBRIM study, cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (C+V) significantly improved survival outcomes vs placebo and vemurafenib (P+V) in patients with advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutated melanoma. An analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) from coBRIM is reported.Methods: Patients completing the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline and ⩾1 time point thereafter constituted the analysis population. Change from baseline ⩾10 points was considered clinically meaningful.Results: Mean baseline scores for all QLQ-C30 domains were similar between arms. Most on-treatment scores for QLQ-C30 domains were also comparable between arms. A transient deterioration in role function in cycle 1 day 15 (C1D15; -14.7 points) in the P+V arm and improvement in insomnia in the C+V arm at C2D15 (-12.4 points) was observed. Among patients who experienced a ⩾10-point change from baseline (responders), between-group differences were greatest for insomnia (16%), social functioning (10%), fatigue (9%) and pain (7%), all favouring C+V. Diarrhoea, photosensitivity reaction, pyrexia, and rash did not meaningfully affect global health status (GHS). Serous retinopathy was associated with a transient decrease in GHS at C1D15 assessment.Conclusions: In patients with advanced/metastatic BRAFV600-mutated melanoma, treatment with C+V maintained HRQOL compared with P+V, with superior efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: HER2-targeted treatments have improved outcomes in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings; however, some patients remain at risk of relapse or death for many years after treatment of early-stage disease. Therefore, new strategies are needed. We did a phase 3 trial to assess a neoadjuvant regimen for HER2-positive breast cancer that replaces traditional systemic chemotherapy with targeted treatment.Methods: We did a randomised, open-label phase 3 KRISTINE trial in 68 Translational Research In Oncology centres (hospitals and specialty cancer centres in Asia, Europe, USA, and Canada). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with centrally confirmed HER2-positive stage II-III operable breast cancer (>2 cm tumour size), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55% (by echocardiogram or multiple-gated acquisition scan). We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive either trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab. We did the randomisation via an interactive response system under a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of four), stratified by hormone receptor status, stage at diagnosis, and geographical location. Patients received six cycles (every 3 weeks) of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab (trastuzumab emtansine 3·6 mg/kg; pertuzumab 840 mg loading dose, 420 mg maintenance doses) or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (docetaxel 75 mg/m2; carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 6 mg/mL × min; trastuzumab 8 mg/kg loading dose, 6 mg/kg maintenance doses) plus pertuzumab [same dosing as in the other group]). All treatments were administered intravenously. The primary objective was to compare the number of patients who achieved a pathological complete response (ypT0/is, ypN0), between groups in the intention-to-treat population (two-sided assessment), based on local evaluation of tumour samples taken at breast cancer surgery done between 14 days and 6 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant therapy. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02131064, and follow-up of the adjuvant phase is ongoing.Findings: Between June 25, 2014, and June 15, 2015, we randomly assigned 444 patients to neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab (n=223) or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (n=221). A pathological complete response was achieved by 99 (44·4%) of 223 patients in the trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab group and 123 (55·7%) of 221 patients in the docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab group (absolute difference -11·3 percentage points, 95% CI -20·5 to -2·0; p=0·016). During neoadjuvant treatment, compared with patients receiving docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, fewer patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab had a grade 3-4 adverse event (29 [13%] of 223 vs 141 [64%] of 219) or a serious adverse event (11 [5%] of 223 vs 63 [29%] of 219). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab group were decreased platelet count (three [1%] of 223 patients vs 11 [5%] of 219 with docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab), fatigue (three [1%] vs seven [3%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (three [1%] vs four [2%]), and hypokalaemia (three [1%] vs five [2%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab group were neutropenia (55 [25%] of 219 vs one [<1%] of 223 with trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab), diarrhoea (33 [15%] vs 2 [<1%]), and febrile neutropenia (33 [15%] vs 0). No deaths were reported during neoadjuvant treatment.Interpretation: Traditional neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy plus dual HER2-targeted blockade (docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab) resulted in significantly more patients achieving a pathological complete response than HER2-targeted chemotherapy plus HER2-targeted blockade (trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab); however, numerically more grade 3-4 and serious adverse events occurred in the chemotherapy plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab group. Further efforts to improve the efficacy of chemotherapy without imparting more toxicity are warranted.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The combination of cobimetinib with vemurafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo and vemurafenib in previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600)-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 BRAF(V600) 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 BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The article highlights the results of a research study on the effectiveness of drug combination therapy in melanoma. Topics noted include the efficacy of combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in melanoma patients with BRAF mutations, comparison of combined BRAF and MEK inhibition of drug resistance, assessment of progression-free survival and interim analysis of overall survival of patients, and common adverse events, response rate, and safety of the therapy.

Simple Summary: Advanced melanoma is a highly aggressive disease with a poor prognosis. Recent clinical trials have shown that targeted therapy (TT) and immunotherapy (IT) lead to significant improvements in responses to treatment and the survival of advanced melanoma patients. However, little information is available in the form of real-world data on treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutant melanoma. To approach this issue, we performed a retrospective study that involved 382 patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutant melanoma, who received TT in twelve medical centers. Our objectives were to evaluate clinical outcomes in real-world settings, as well as treatment patterns, adverse events, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Considering these parameters, the results demonstrated the effectiveness of combined TT with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors in patients with brain metastases and across all lines of therapy, which was well-tolerated and manageable and showed a high safety profile. Clinical trials of targeted therapy (TT) and immunotherapy (IT) for highly aggressive advanced melanoma have shown marked improvements in response and survival rates. However, real-world data on treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutant melanoma are ultimately scarce. The study was designed as an observational retrospective chart review study, which included 382 patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutant melanoma, who received TT in a real-world setting and were not involved in clinical trials. The data were collected from twelve medical centers in Russia. The objective response rates (ORRs) to combined BRAFi plus MEKi and to BRAFi mono-therapy were 57.4% and 39.8%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 9.2 months and 22.6 months, respectively, for the combined first-line therapy; 9.4 months and 16.1 months, respectively, for the combined second-line therapy; and 7.4 months and 17.1 months, respectively, for the combined third- or higher-line therapy. Analysis of treatment patterns demonstrated the effectiveness of the combined TT with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors in patients with brain metastases, rare types of BRAF mutations, and across lines of therapy, as well as a well-tolerated and manageable safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes by preventing or delaying onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. Materials and methods 495 patients were randomly assigned to receive vemurafenib + cobimetinib (60 mg QD, 21 days on/7 days off) or vemurafenib (960 mg BID) + placebo. Eligibility included treatment-naive BRAFV600 mutation-positive patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic melanoma and adequate performance status and organ function. The primary end point was investigatorassessed progression-free survival (PFS). Safety monitoring included serial cardiac and ophthalmic evaluation and measurement of creatine phosphokinase. Results Median PFS was 9.9 months with the combination compared with 6.2 months with the control (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.68; P<0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) was 68% in the combination and 45% in the control arm (P<0.0001), including complete response in 10% in the combination and 4% of patients in the control group. Subgroup analyses of PFS based on key demographic and tumor characteristics were consistent with PFS in the intent-to-treat population, including those with normal or elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). PFS assessed by independent review was comparable with investigator-assessed PFS. Interim overall survival (OS) data showed an HR of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.42-1.00) but did not cross the prespecified stopping boundary. Compared with vemurafenib alone, the combination was associated with a higher incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (65% vs 59%), with no difference in the rate of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation (13% vs 12%). Most grade ≥3 events occurred in the first 28 days and resolved quickly. Known MEK inhibitor-related toxicities such as diarrhea, serous retinopathy, elevated creatine phosphokinase, and increased liver transaminase levels were more commonly observed with the combination. The majority was grade 1 or 2, occurred between 1 and 4 months in the treatment course, and resolved quickly. The occurrence of secondary cutaneous neoplasms decreased with the combination (4% vs 18%). Photosensitivity was more common in patients treated with the combination (all grades 32% vs 18%).Conclusion Cobimetinib + vemurafenib significantly improved PFS and response rate among patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, with promising preliminary OS analysis. Most combination-related toxicities are mild or moderate, occur early in treatment, and are manageable by dose modification and supportive care; treatment discontinuation is uncommon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]