Search

Background: The 5-year results of this trial showed that adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in longer relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage III melanoma. Longer-term data were needed, including data regarding overall survival., Methods: We randomly assigned 870 patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations to receive 12 months of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Here, we report the final results of this trial, including results for overall survival, melanoma-specific survival, relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival., Results: The median duration of follow-up was 8.33 years for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 6.87 years for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo, although the benefit was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06 by stratified log-rank test). A consistent survival benefit was seen across several prespecified subgroups, including the 792 patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.96). Relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.63), as did distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.71). No new safety signals were reported, a finding consistent with previous trial reports., Conclusions: After nearly 10 years of follow-up, adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was associated with better relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with resected stage III melanoma. The analysis of overall survival showed that the risk of death was 20% lower with combination therapy than with placebo, but the benefit was not significant. Among patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation, the results suggest that the risk of death was 25% lower with combination therapy. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus ipilimumab for unresectable advanced melanoma in KEYNOTE-006 (NCT01866319); 10-year follow-up data are presented., Patients and Methods: Patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks for ≤2 years (pooled), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles. After KEYNOTE-006, patients could transition to KEYNOTE-587 (NCT03486873) for long-term follow-up. Eligible patients could receive second-course pembrolizumab. The primary endpoint was OS; modified progression-free survival (PFS; censored at date last known alive), modified PFS on second-course pembrolizumab, and melanoma-specific survival were exploratory., Results: Of 834 patients randomly assigned in KEYNOTE-006 (pembrolizumab, n = 556; ipilimumab, n = 278), 333 (39.9%) were eligible for KEYNOTE-587; 211/333 patients (25.3%) transitioned to KEYNOTE-587 (pembrolizumab, n = 159; ipilimumab, n = 52) and 122 (14.6%) did not. For patients who transitioned to KEYNOTE-587 (n = 211), median time from randomization in KEYNOTE-006 to data cut-off for KEYNOTE-587 (1 May 2024) was 123.7 months (range, 122.0-127.3 months). Median OS was 32.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.5-41.6 months] for pembrolizumab and 15.9 months (95% CI 13.3-22.0 months) for ipilimumab [hazard ratio (HR), 0.71 (95% CI 0.60-0.85)]; 10-year OS was 34.0% and 23.6%, respectively. Among patients who completed ≥94 weeks of pembrolizumab, median OS from week 94 was not reached (NR; 95% CI NR-NR); 8-year OS rate was 80.8%. Median modified PFS was 9.4 months (95% CI 6.7-11.6 months) for pembrolizumab and 3.8 months (2.9-4.3 months) for ipilimumab [HR, 0.64 (95% CI 0.54-0.75)]. Among patients who received second-course pembrolizumab, median modified PFS from start of second course was 51.8 months (95% CI 11.0 months-NR); 6-year modified PFS was 49.2%. Median melanoma-specific survival was 51.9 months (95% CI 30.0-114.7 months) for pembrolizumab and 17.2 months (13.9-25.9 months) for ipilimumab [HR, 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.81)]., Conclusions: These results confirm that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefits in advanced melanoma, supporting it as a standard of care in this setting., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have led to unprecedented prolongation of overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced melanoma. Five-year follow-up of KEYNOTE-006 showed pembrolizumab prolonged survival versus ipilimumab. Efficacy results with 7-year follow-up are presented. At data cutoff (April 19, 2021), median follow-up was 85.3 months (range, 0.03-90.8 months). Median OS was 32.7 months for pembrolizumab versus 15.9 months for ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.83); 7-year OS was 37.8% and 25.3%, respectively. OS HRs favored pembrolizumab regardless of BRAF status or prior BRAF/MEK-inhibitor treatment and prognostic characteristics (elevated lactate dehydrogenase, large tumor size, and brain metastasis). Median modified progression-free survival (mPFS) was 9.4 months for pembrolizumab versus 3.8 months for ipilimumab; 7-year mPFS was 23.8% and 13.3%, respectively. In patients who completed ≥94 weeks of pembrolizumab, the 5-year OS was 92.9% and the 5-year mPFS was 70.1%. The objective response rate with second-course pembrolizumab (n = 16) was 56% (95% CI, 30 to 80) and the 2-year mPFS was 62.5%. These findings confirm that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefit in advanced melanoma.

Purpose: Nivolumab and relatlimab activity in advanced melanoma with prior progression on anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-(L)1)-containing regimens is under investigation. RELATIVITY-047 demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) for nivolumab and relatlimab over nivolumab in previously untreated advanced melanoma., Methods: The phase I/IIa, open-label RELATIVITY-020 trial part D assessed efficacy and safety of nivolumab and relatlimab in advanced melanoma with progression during, or within 3 months of, 1 (D1) or ≥ 1 (D2) anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimens. Safety was a primary end point. Objective response rate (coprimary end point) and PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) were assessed., Results: Five hundred eighteen patients (D1 = 354; D2 = 164) received nivolumab and relatlimab. Among evaluable patients, the objective response rate by BICR was 12.0% (95% CI, 8.8 to 15.8) in D1 (n = 351) and 9.2% (95% CI, 5.2 to 14.7) in D2 (n = 163). Responses appeared to be enriched among patients with tumors expressing programmed death ligand 1 or lymphocyte activation gene 3; however, responses were observed regardless of programmed death ligand 1 and lymphocyte activation gene 3 expression (1%). The median duration of response was not reached (95% CI, 12.9 to not reached) in D1 and 12.8 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.9) in D2. The median PFS by BICR was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.5) in D1 and 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.6) in D2; the 6-month PFS rate was 29.1% (95% CI, 24.2 to 34.1) and 27.7% (95% CI, 20.5 to 35.4), respectively. The grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event incidence was 15.0% in D1 and 12.8% in D2. One case of grade 3 myocarditis and no treatment-related deaths occurred across part D., Conclusion: Nivolumab and relatlimab had a manageable safety profile and demonstrated durable clinical activity in a proportion of patients with heavily pretreated advanced melanoma with prior progression on anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimens., [Media: see text].

Background: Up to 50% of patients with uveal melanoma develop metastases (MUM) with a poor prognosis and median overall survival of approximately 1 year., Methods: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and efficacy of the oral protein kinase C inhibitor LXS196 in 68 patients with MUM (NCT02601378). Patients received LXS196 doses ranging from 100-1000 mg once daily (QD; n = 38) and 200-400 mg twice daily (BID; n = 30)., Results: First cycle dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in 7/38 (18.4%) QD and 2/17 (11.8%) BID patients. Hypotension was the most common DLT, occurring at doses ≥500 mg/day, and manageable with LXS196 interruption and dose reduction. Median duration of exposure to LXS196 was 3.71 months (range: 1.81-15.28) for QD and 4.6 months (range: 0.33-58.32) for BID dosing. Clinical activity was observed in 6/66 (9.1%) evaluable patients achieving response (CR/PR), with a median duration of response of 10.15 months (range: 2.99-41.95); 45/66 had stable disease (SD) per RECIST v1.1. At 300 mg BID, the recommended dose for expansion, 2/18 (11.1%) evaluable patients achieved PR and 12/18 (66.7%) had SD., Conclusion: These results suggest manageable toxicity and encouraging clinical activity of single-agent LXS196 in patients with MUM., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

BackgroundRelatlimab plus nivolumab (anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 plus anti-programmed death 1 [anti-LAG-3+anti-PD-1]) has been approved by the FDA as a first-line therapy for stage III/IV melanoma, but its detailed effect on the immune system is unknown.MethodsWe evaluated blood samples from 40 immunotherapy-naive or prior immunotherapy-refractory patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-LAG-3+anti-PD-1 in a phase I trial using single-cell RNA and T cell receptor sequencing (scRNA+TCRαβ-Seq) combined with other multiomics profiling.ResultsThe highest LAG3 expression was noted in NK cells, Tregs, and CD8+ T cells, and these cell populations underwent the most significant changes during the treatment. Adaptive NK cells were enriched in responders and underwent profound transcriptomic changes during the therapy, resulting in an active phenotype. LAG3+ Tregs expanded, but based on the transcriptome profile, became metabolically silent during the treatment. Last, higher baseline TCR clonality was observed in responding patients, and their expanding CD8+ T cell clones gained a more cytotoxic and NK-like phenotype.ConclusionAnti-LAG-3+anti-PD-1 therapy has profound effects on NK cells and Tregs in addition to CD8+ T cells.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01968109)FundingCancer Foundation Finland, Sigrid Juselius Foundation, Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, Relander Foundation, State funding for university-level health research in Finland, a Helsinki Institute of Life Sciences Fellow grant, Academy of Finland (grant numbers 314442, 311081, 335432, and 335436), and an investigator-initiated research grant from BMS.

Aim: This study was performed to investigate the characteristics and overall survival (OS) of patients with completely resected stage IIB-IV cutaneous melanoma identified in the Cancer Registry of Norway. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with stage ≥IIB cutaneous melanoma was performed in Norway (January 2008 to December 2018), excluding patients with stage IV melanoma without evidence of surgery. Results: 5-year OS varied by stage (IIB 65%, IIC 38%, IIIA 79%, IIIB 66%, IIIC 52%, IIID 37% and IV 39%). Adjusted Cox models showed that stage IIIA and IIIB patients showed similar survival to stage IIB patients (hazard ratio [95% CI]: IIIA 0.67 [0.44-1.04]; IIIB 1.18 [0.96-1.45]), while all other stages had lower survival than IIB. Conclusion: Survival for stage II patients, particularly IIC, can be poor and in some cases worse than patients with more advanced stage melanoma. Our data highlight an unmet need for effective adjuvant treatment options among stage IIB/C patients.

Background: We have previously reported that the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab in real-world patients with metastatic melanoma were comparable to clinical trials. Few studies have explored health-related quality of life (HRQL) in real-world populations receiving checkpoint inhibitors. This study reports HRQL in real-world patients receiving ipilimumab and assesses the prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures., Patients and Methods: Ipi4 (NCT02068196) was a prospective, multicentre, interventional phase IV trial. Real-world patients (N = 151) with metastatic melanoma were treated with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg intravenously as labelled. HRQL was assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at baseline and after 10-12 weeks., Results: The European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire was completed by 93% (141/151 patients) at baseline, and by 82% at 10-12 weeks. Poor performance status and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) were associated with worse baseline HRQL. Clinically relevant and statistically significant deteriorations in HRQL from baseline to weeks 10-12 were reported (P <0.05). Baseline physical functioning [hazard ratio (HR) 1.96, P = 0.016], role functioning (HR 2.15, P <0.001), fatigue (HR 1.60, P = 0.030), and appetite loss (HR 1.76, P = 0.012) were associated with poorer overall survival independent of performance status, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and CRP. We further developed a prognostic model, combining HRQL outcomes with performance status, LDH, and CRP. This model identified three groups with large and statistically significant differences in survival., Conclusions: Systemic inflammation is associated with impaired HRQL. During treatment with ipilimumab, HRQL deteriorated significantly. Combining HRQL outcomes with objective risk factors provided additional prognostic information that may aid clinical decision making., Competing Interests: Disclosure EA, KDJ, KTH, KH, SK, SA, and TKG have received clinical research support from the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. MN has received personal fees and honoraria for lectures and expert meetings from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre. JAK has received honoraria for lectures and clinical research support from the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche. OH reports honoraria for lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharpe and Dohme and research funding from Novartis. CK reports former employment with Roche. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interests. Data sharing The datasets generated during and analysed during the current trial are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethics approval and consent to participate The Ipi4 trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02068196) was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics South East (REC ID 2013/1518) and conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964). All patients provided written informed consent to participate in the trial., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

More than half of metastatic melanoma patients receiving standard therapy fail to achieve a long-term survival due to primary and/or acquired resistance. Tumor cell ability to switch from epithelial to a more aggressive mesenchymal phenotype, attributed with AXL high molecular profile in melanoma, has been recently linked to such event, limiting treatment efficacy. In the current study, we investigated the therapeutic potential of the AXL inhibitor (AXLi) BGB324 alone or in combination with the clinically relevant BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) vemurafenib. Firstly, AXL was shown to be expressed in majority of melanoma lymph node metastases. When treated ex vivo, the largest reduction in cell viability was observed when the two drugs were combined. In addition, a therapeutic benefit of adding AXLi to the BRAF-targeted therapy was observed in pre-clinical AXL high melanoma models in vitro and in vivo. When searching for mechanistic insights, AXLi was found to potentiate BRAFi-induced apoptosis, stimulate ferroptosis and inhibit autophagy. Altogether, our findings propose AXLi as a promising treatment in combination with standard therapy to improve therapeutic outcome in metastatic melanoma., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Ipilimumab was the first treatment that improved survival in advanced melanoma. Efficacy and toxicity in a real-world setting may differ from clinical trials, due to more liberal eligibility criteria and less intensive monitoring. Moreover, high costs and lack of biomarkers have raised cost-benefit concerns about ipilimumab in national healthcare systems and limited its use. Here, we report the prospective, interventional study, Ipi4 (NCT02068196), which aimed to investigate the toxicity and efficacy of ipilimumab in a real-world population with advanced melanoma. This national, multicentre, phase IV trial included 151 patients. Patients received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg intravenously and were followed for at least 5 years or until death. Treatment interruption or cessation occurred in 38%, most frequently due to disease progression (19%). Treatment-associated grade 3 to 4 toxicity was observed in 28% of patients, and immune-related toxicity in 56%. The overall response rate was 9%. Median overall survival was 12.1 months (95% CI: 8.3-15.9); and progression-free survival 2.7 months (95% CI: 2.6-2.8). After 5 years, 20% of patients were alive. In a landmark analysis from 6 months, improved survival was associated with objective response (HR 0.16, P = .001) and stable disease (HR 0.49, P = .005) compared to progressive disease. Poor performance status, elevated lactate dehydrogenase and C-reactive protein were identified as biomarkers. This prospective trial represents the longest reported follow-up of a real-world melanoma population treated with ipilimumab. Results indicate safety and efficacy comparable to phase III trials and suggest that the use of ipilimumab can be based on current cost-benefit estimates., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Ipilimumab improves survival for patients with metastatic malignant melanoma. Combining a therapeutic cancer vaccine with ipilimumab may increase efficacy by providing enhanced anti-tumor immune responses. UV1 consists of three synthetic long peptides from human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT). These peptides comprise epitopes recognized by T cells from cancer patients experiencing long-term survival following treatment with a first-generation hTERT vaccine, and generate long-lasting immune responses in cancer patients when used as monotherapy. The objective of this trial was to investigate the safety and efficacy of combining UV1 with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma., Patients and Methods: In this phase I/IIa, single center trial [NCT02275416], patients with metastatic melanoma received repeated UV1 vaccinations, with GM-CSF as an adjuvant, in combination with ipilimumab. Patients were evaluated for safety, efficacy and immune response. Immune responses against vaccine peptides were monitored in peripheral blood by measuring antigen-specific proliferation and IFN-γ production., Results: Twelve patients were recruited. Adverse events were mainly diarrhea, injection site reaction, pruritus, rash, nausea and fatigue. Ten patients showed a Th1 immune response to UV1 peptides, occurring early and after few vaccinations. Three patients obtained a partial response and one patient a complete response. Overall survival was 50% at 5 years., Conclusion: Treatment was well tolerated. The rapid expansion of UV1-specific Th1 cells in the majority of patients indicates synergy between UV1 vaccine and CTLA-4 blockade. This may have translated into clinical benefit, encouraging the combination of UV1 vaccination with standard of care treatment regimes containing ipilimumab/CTLA-4 blocking antibodies., Competing Interests: EMI and GG are inventors of a UV1 vaccine patent. EI, WR, GG and SA are shareholders in Ultimovacs ASA. EE, WR, SA and GG are employees of Ultimovacs ASA. MN has received personal honoraria from BMS for lectures. The authors declare that this study received funding from Ultimovacs ASA. The funder had the following involvement with the study: study design of the trial., (Copyright © 2021 Aamdal, Inderberg, Ellingsen, Rasch, Brunsvig, Aamdal, Heintz, Vodák, Nakken, Hovig, Nyakas, Guren and Gaudernack.)

Background: Adjuvant targeted therapy (TT) improves relapse free survival in patients with resected BRAF mutant stage III melanoma. The outcomes and optimal management of patients who relapse after adjuvant TT is unknown., Methods: Patients from twenty-one centres with recurrent melanoma after adjuvant TT were included. Disease characteristics, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, treatment at relapse and outcomes were examined., Results: Eighty-five patients developed recurrent melanoma; nineteen (22%) during adjuvant TT. Median time to first recurrence was 18 months and median follow-up from first recurrence was 31 months. Fifty-eight (68%) patients received immunotherapy (IT) or TT as 1st line systemic therapy at either first or subsequent recurrence and had disease that was assessable for response. Response to anti-PD-1 (±trial agent), combination ipilimumab-nivolumab, TT rechallenge and ipilimumab monotherapy was 63%, 62% 25% and 10% respectively. Twenty-eight (33%) patients had died at census, all from melanoma. Two-year OS was 84% for anti-PD-1 therapy (±trial agent), 92% for combination ipilimumab and nivolumab, 49% for TT and 45% for ipilimumab monotherapy (p = 0.028)., Conclusions: Patients who relapse after adjuvant TT respond well to subsequent anti-PD-1 based therapy and have outcomes similar to those seen when first line anti-PD-1 therapy is used in stage IV melanoma.

Human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) is a target antigen for cancer immunotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We have tested a novel hTERT vaccine, UV1, designed to give high population coverage. UV1 is composed of three synthetic long peptides containing multiple epitopes identified by epitope spreading data from long-term survivors from previous hTERT vaccination trials. Eighteen non-HLA-typed patients with stage III/IV NSCLC with no evidence of progression after prior treatments, were enrolled in a phase I dose-escalation study of UV1 vaccination with GM-CSF as adjuvant, evaluating safety, immune response, and long-term clinical outcome. Treatment with UV1 was well tolerated with no serious adverse events observed. Seventeen patients were evaluable for tumor response; 15 patients had stable disease as best response. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 10.7 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 28.2 months. The OS at 4 years was 39% (7/18). Five patients are alive (median survival 5.6 years), and none of these are known to have received checkpoint therapy after vaccination. UV1 induced specific T-cell responses in the majority (67%) of patients. Immune responses were dynamic and long lasting. Both immune response (IR) and OS were dose related. More patients in the highest UV1 dosage group (700 μg) developed IRs compared to the other groups, and the IRs were stronger and occurred earlier. Patients in this group had a 4-year OS of 83%. The safety and clinical outcome data favor 700 μg as the preferred UV1 dose in this patient population. These results provide a rationale for further clinical studies in NSCLC with UV1 vaccination in combination with immune checkpoint blockade., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT0178909., Competing Interests: GG and EMI are inventors on the UV1 vaccine patent. WR, GG, and EMI are shareholders of Ultimovacs ASA. WR, GG, and SA are Ultimovacs ASA employees. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Brunsvig, Guren, Nyakas, Steinfeldt-Reisse, Rasch, Kyte, Juul, Aamdal, Gaudernack and Inderberg.)

Background: In the previously reported primary analysis of this phase 3 trial, 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in significantly longer relapse-free survival than placebo in patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. To confirm the stability of the relapse-free survival benefit, longer-term data were needed., Methods: We randomly assigned 870 patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive 12 months of oral dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Here, we report 5-year results for relapse-free survival and survival without distant metastasis as the site of the first relapse. Overall survival was not analyzed, since the required number of events to trigger the final overall survival analysis had not been reached., Results: The minimum duration of follow-up was 59 months (median patient follow-up, 60 months for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 58 months for placebo). At 5 years, the percentage of patients who were alive without relapse was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48 to 58) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 36% (95% CI, 32 to 41) with placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.61). The percentage of patients who were alive without distant metastasis was 65% (95% CI, 61 to 71) with dabrafenib plus trametinib and 54% (95% CI, 49 to 60) with placebo (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.70). No clinically meaningful between-group difference in the incidence or severity of serious adverse events was reported during the follow-up period., Conclusions: In the 5-year follow-up of a phase 3 trial involving patients who had resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, 12 months of adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a longer duration of survival without relapse or distant metastasis than placebo with no apparent long-term toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Importance: The optimal sequencing of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy for BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma is not well established., Objective: To assess the association of BRAF wild-type (WT) or BRAF V600E/K-mutant status and BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) with or without MEK inhibitor (MEKi) therapy with response to pembrolizumab., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a post hoc subgroup analysis of pooled data from 3 multinational, multisite studies: KEYNOTE-001 (data cutoff September 1, 2017), KEYNOTE-002 (data cutoff May 30, 2018), and KEYNOTE-006 (data cutoff December 4, 2017). Patients included in this analysis were adults with advanced melanoma and known BRAF V600E/K tumor status who had received pembrolizumab., Interventions: Patients received pembrolizumab in dosages of 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: End points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival (OS). Objective response rates, 4-year PFS, and OS rates were compared in the following patient subgroups: BRAF WT vs BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma with vs without previous treatment with BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy., Results: The overall study population (N = 1558) included 944 men (60.6%) and 614 women (39.4%). The mean (SD) age was 60.0 years (14.0). The ORR was 38.3% (596/1558), 4-year PFS rate was 22.0%, and 4-year OS rate was 36.9%. For patients with BRAF WT (n = 1124) and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma (n = 434), ORR was 39.8% (n = 447) and 34.3% (n = 149), 4-year PFS rate was 22.9% and 19.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 37.5% and 35.1%, respectively. Patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who had (n = 271) vs had not (n = 163) previously received BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy had baseline characteristics with worse prognosis; ORR was 28.4% (n = 77) and 44.2% (n = 72), 4-year PFS rate was 15.2% and 27.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 26.9% and 49.3%, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this subgroup analysis support the use of pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced melanoma regardless of BRAF V600E/K mutation status or receipt of prior BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy.

Background: The analysis of the BRAF mutational status has been established as a standard procedure during diagnosis of advanced malignant melanoma due to the fact that BRAF inhibitors constitute a cornerstone in the treatment of metastatic disease. However, the general impact of BRAF mutational status on survival remains unclear. Our study aimed to assess the underlying prognostic significance of BRAF mutant versus wild type (WT) malignant melanoma on overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Material and methods: A systematic literature search in EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed. Studies were included if they reported survival outcomes for BRAF mutant versus WT patients as hazard ratios (HR) or in Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to pool HRs across the studies. Results: Data from 52 studies, representing 7519 patients, were pooled for analysis of OS. The presence of a BRAF mutation was statistically significantly associated with a reduced OS (HR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.23 [1.09-1.38]), however, with substantial heterogeneity between the studies ( I 2 : 58.0%). Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses showed that age, sex and BRAF mutation testing method did not have a significant effect on the OS HR. BRAF mutant melanoma showed comparable effect on DFS to non-BRAF mutant melanoma in stage I-III melanoma (combined HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.92-1.46), and on PFS in stage III-IV (HR: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68-1.40)). Conclusion: Although there was substantial heterogeneity between the studies, the overall results demonstrated a poorer prognosis and OS in patients harbouring BRAF mutations. Future studies should take this into account when evaluating epidemiological data and treatment effects of new interventions in patients with malignant melanoma.

Background: We have previously reported significantly longer overall survival (OS) with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma, with higher incidences of adverse events (AEs) at 10 mg/kg. This follow-up analysis reports a 5-year update of OS and safety., Methods: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial included patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses. The primary end point was OS., Results: At a minimum follow-up of 61 months, median OS was 15.7 months (95% CI 11.6 to 17.8) at 10 mg/kg and 11.5 months (95% CI 9.9 to 13.3) at 3 mg/kg (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; p=0.04). In a subgroup analysis, median OS of patients with asymptomatic brain metastasis was 7.0 months (95% CI 4.0 to 12.8) in the 10 mg/kg group and 5.7 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.0) in the 3 mg/kg group. In patients with wild-type or mutant BRAF tumors, median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI 10.2 to 17.0) and 33.2 months (95% CI 19.4 to 45.2) in the 10 mg/kg group, and 11.2 months (95% CI 9.2 to 13.8) and 19.7 months (95% CI 11.6 to 25.3) in the 3 mg/kg group, respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs was 36% in the 10 mg/kg group vs 20% in the 3 mg/kg group, and deaths due to treatment-related AEs occurred in four (1%) and two patients (1%), respectively., Conclusions: This 61-month follow-up of a phase III trial showed sustained long-term survival in patients with advanced melanoma who started metastatic treatment with ipilimumab monotherapy, and confirmed the significant benefit for those who received ipilimumab 10 mg/kg vs 3 mg/kg. These results suggest the emergence of a plateau in the OS curve, consistent with previous ipilimumab studies., Trial Registration Number: NCT01515189., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PAA has served as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, NewLink Genetics, Genmab, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Syndax, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore and 4SC, and received research funding from Array, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech and MSD. MDV has served as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. CR has served as a consultant to, or served on the board of directors/advisors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Amgen, Merck, Roche, MSD and Sanofi. AA has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Sanofi and Merck. CLebbé has served on the board of advisors/directors of Merck Serono, Novartis and Sanofi, and has served as a consultant to, received research funding from or served on the board of directors/advisors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche and MSD. IMS has received honoraria from MSD, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. PR has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Blueprint Medicines. CLoquai has served on the board of advisors/directors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Biontech and Idera, and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi and Kyowa Kirin. LM has served on a medical board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Roche, and has received travel fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb. OH has received research funding from Amgen, Arcus, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celldex, CytomX, Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Incyte, Iovance, Merck, Merck Serono, MedImmune, NextCure, Novartis, Parker, Pfizer, Polynoma, Regeneron and Roche, served as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Merck, Novartis and Roche, and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Array, Genentech, Novartis and Sanofi. LB has served on the board of advisors/directors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Incyte and Bayer, and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb. BD has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche and Novartis and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre and Roche. DS has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Merck, Amgen, 4SC, Merck-EMD, Array, Pierre Fabre, Philiogen, Incyte and Pfizer, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis. CG has has served as a consultant to, or served on the board of directors/advisors of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, MSD, NeraCare, Novartis, Philogen, Roche and Sanofi, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, NeraCare, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi. MN has received honoraria from Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Bristol-Myers Squibb. J-JG has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma and Sanofi. LT has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb. GL has received honoraria from and served as a consultant to Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis. MS has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Sanofi Genzyme and Novartis. CH has received honoraria from, and served on the board of advisors for Bristol-Myers Squibb, and honoraria from Amgen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Roche. RG has received research funding and honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche Pharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, Almirall Hermal, LEO, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma and 4SC. FH and BS are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. MM has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Incyte, and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Receptor tyrosine kinase AXL is a one-pass transmembrane protein upregulated in cancers and associated with lower survival and therapy resistance. AXL can be cleaved by the A Disintegrin and Metalloproteinases (ADAM)10 and ADAM17, yielding a soluble version of the protein. Elevated soluble AXL (sAXL) has been reported to be associated with disease progression in hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cancer, neurofibromatosis type 1 and inflammatory diseases. In the present work, we analyzed sAXL levels in blood from melanoma patients and showed that sAXL increases with disease progression. Additionally, increased sAXL levels were found correlated with shorter two-year survival in stage IV patients treated with ipilimumab. Furthermore, we showed that sAXL levels were related to the percentage of cells expressing AXL in resected melanoma lymph node metastases. This finding was verified in vitro, where sAXL levels in the cell media corresponded to AXL expression in the cells. AXL inhibition using the small-molecular inhibitor BGB324 reduced sAXL levels, while the cellular expression was elevated through increased protein stability. Our findings signify that quantification of sAXL blood levels is a simple and easily assessable method to determine cellular AXL levels and should be further evaluated for its use as a biomarker of disease progression and treatment response., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking monoclonal antibodies improve the overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma but the optimal duration of treatment has not been established., Patients and Methods: This academic real-world cohort study investigated the outcome of 185 advanced melanoma patients who electively discontinued anti-PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab (N = 167) or nivolumab (N = 18) in the absence of disease progression (PD) or treatment limiting toxicity (TLT) at 14 medical centres across Europe and Australia., Results: Median time on treatment was 12 months (range 0.7-43). The best objective tumour response at the time of treatment discontinuation was complete response (CR) in 117 (63%) patients, partial response (PR) in 44 (24%) patients and stable disease (SD) in 16 (9%) patients; 8 (4%) patients had no evaluable disease (NE). After a median follow-up of 18 months (range 0.7-48) after treatment discontinuation, 78% of patients remained free of progression. Median time to progression was 12 months (range 2-23). PD was less frequent in patients with CR (14%) compared with patients with PR (32%) and SD (50%). Six out of 19 (32%) patients who were retreated with an anti-PD-1 at the time of PD obtained a new antitumour response., Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of advanced melanoma patients discontinuing anti-PD-1 therapy in the absence of TLT or PD, the duration of anti-PD-1 therapy was shorter when compared with clinical trials. In patients obtaining a CR, and being treated for >6 months, the risk of relapse after treatment discontinuation was low. Patients achieving a PR or SD as best tumour response were at higher risk for progression after discontinuing therapy, and defining optimal treatment duration in such patients deserves further study. Retreatment with an anti-PD-1 at the time of progression may lead to renewed antitumour activity in some patients., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02673970 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02673970?cond=melanoma&cntry=BE&city=Jette&rank=3)., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

New therapies, including the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen (CTLA)-4 antibody, ipilimumab, is approved for metastatic melanoma. Prognostic biomarkers need to be identified, because the treatment has serious side effects. Serum samples were obtained before and during treatment from 56 patients with metastatic or unresectable malignant melanoma, receiving treatment with ipilimumab in a national Phase IV study (NCT0268196). Expression of a panel of 17 inflammatory-related markers reflecting different pathways including extracellular matrix remodeling and fibrosis, vascular inflammation and monocyte/macrophage activation were measured at baseline and the second and/or third course of treatment with ipilimumab. Six candidate proteins [endostatin, osteoprotegerin (OPG), C-reactive protein (CRP), pulmonary and activation-regulated chemokine (PARC), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) and galectin-3 binding-protein (Gal3BP)] were persistently higher in non-survivors. In particular, high Gal3BP and endostatin levels were also independently associated with poor 2-year survival after adjusting for lactate dehydrogenase, M-stage and number of organs affected. A 1 standard deviation increase in endostatin gave 1·74 times [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1·10-2·78, P = 0·019] and for Gal3BP 1·52 times (95% CI = 1·01-2·29, P = 0·047) higher risk of death in the adjusted model. Endostatin and Gal3BP may represent prognostic biomarkers for patients on ipilimumab treatment in metastatic melanoma and should be further evaluated. Owing to the non-placebo design, we could only relate our findings to prognosis during ipilimumab treatment., (© 2019 The Authors. Clinical & Experimental Immunology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Society for Immunology.)

Background: In the phase 3 COMBI-AD study, patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations received adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib or placebo. The primary analysis showed that dabrafenib plus trametinib significantly improved relapse-free survival at 3 years. These results led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations. Here, we report the patient-reported outcomes from COMBI-AD., Methods: COMBI-AD was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done at 169 sites in 25 countries. Study participants were aged 18 years or older and had complete resection of stage IIIA (lymph node metastases >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma as per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria, with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system, stratified by mutation type and disease stage, to receive oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) or matching placebos for 12 months. Patients, physicians, and the investigators who analysed the data were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival, reported elsewhere. Health-related quality of life, reported here, was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, and was assessed with the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in the intention-to-treat population. We used a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis to assess differences in health-related quality of life between groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01682083. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer recruiting participants., Findings: Between Jan 31, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 870 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=438) or matching placebos (n=432). Data were collected until the data cutoff for analyses of the primary endpoint (June 30, 2017). The median follow-up was 34 months (IQR 28-39) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 33 months (20·5-39) in the placebo group. During the 12-month treatment phase, there were no significant or clinically meaningful changes from baseline between groups in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) or utility scores. During treatment, there were no clinically meaningful differences in VAS scores or utility scores in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group between patients who did and did not experience the most common adverse events. During long-term follow-up (range 15-48 months), VAS and utility scores were similar between groups and did not differ from baseline scores. At recurrence, there were significant decreases in VAS scores in both the dabrafenib plus trametinib group (mean change -6·02, SD 20·57; p=0·0032) and the placebo group (-6·84, 20·86; p<0·0001); the mean change in utility score also differed significantly at recurrence for both groups (dabrafenib plus trametinib -0·0626, 0·1911, p<0·0001; placebo -0·0748, 0·2182, p<0·0001)., Interpretation: These findings show that dabrafenib plus trametinib did not affect patient-reported outcome scores during or after adjuvant treatment, and suggest that preventing or delaying relapse with adjuvant therapy could be beneficial in this setting., Funding: Novartis., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The oncogenic BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib improves outcomes for patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Vemurafenib is now approved for use in this patient population., Patients and Methods: In this open-label, multicentre study, patients with previously treated or untreated melanoma and the BRAF V600 mutation received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was safety. In a post hoc analysis, overall survival (OS) was analysed according to a prognostic scoring system developed using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, existence of brain metastases and baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase level. The index was validated using data from patients treated with vemurafenib or dacarbazine in three clinical trials and data from patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in two studies. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01307397)., Results: Between March 2011 and January 2013, 3224 patients were enrolled, and 3219 patients received ≥1 dose of vemurafenib (safety population); median follow-up time was 33.4 months. Vemurafenib's long-term benefits were confirmed, and no new safety signals identified. The prognostic index showed between-group differences in OS, with tight, non-overlapping confidence intervals. Validation in a pooled group of 666 vemurafenib-treated clinical trial patients revealed a similar pattern; the pattern was similar in 280 patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib., Conclusions: Final results from the vemurafenib safety study confirm vemurafenib's tolerability in BRAF V600 mutation-positive patients and resemble those seen in real-world clinical practice. This index may be useful in patients on combination therapy and as a basis for further work., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Dabrafenib plus trametinib improved relapse-free survival (RFS) versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; P < .001) in patients with resected BRAF V600-mutant stage III melanoma (BRF115532; COMBI-AD; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01682083). We present an updated RFS analysis on the basis of extended study follow-up and a cure-rate model analysis to estimate the fraction of patients expected to remain relapse free long term., Methods: In this phase III trial, patients with resected BRAF V600-mutant stage III melanoma were randomly assigned to 12 months of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib versus placebo. We report updated RFS (primary end point) and distant metastasis-free survival. RFS was also analyzed by subgroups defined by baseline disease stage (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th and 8th editions), nodal metastatic burden, and ulceration status. The fraction of patients who remained relapse free long term was estimated using a Weibull mixture cure-rate model., Results: At median follow-up of 44 months (dabrafenib plus trametinib) and 42 months (placebo), 3- and 4-year RFS rates were 59% (95% CI, 55% to 64%) and 54% (95% CI, 49% to 59%) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib arm and 40% (95% CI, 35% to 45%) and 38% (95% CI, 34% to 44%) in the placebo arm, respectively (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.59). Distant metastasis-free survival also favored dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.67). The estimated cure rate was 54% (95% CI, 49% to 59%) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib arm compared with 37% (95% CI, 32% to 42%) in the placebo arm. Subgroup analysis of RFS demonstrated similar treatment benefit regardless of baseline factors, including disease stage, nodal metastatic burden, and ulceration., Conclusion: Longer follow-up confirmed RFS benefit with dabrafenib plus trametinib. Subgroup analysis suggested that dabrafenib plus trametinib benefited patients regardless of baseline factors.

Background: Predictive biomarkers of patients likely to benefit from anti-programmed death 1 inhibitor therapy have clinical relevance. We examined whether line of therapy or tumour programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression affects the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab, compared with ipilimumab, in advanced melanoma., Methods: Of 834 patients enrolled in the randomised, open-label phase III KEYNOTE-006 study, 833 were included in this analysis. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 or 3 weeks (for 24 months) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (for four doses) until disease progression/intolerable toxicity. This analysis evaluated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Data cut-off: 03 November 2016., Results: Of the patients, 60.3% were male, 65.9% were treatment naive and 80.6% had PD-L1-positive tumours (median follow-up was 33.9 months). Twenty-four-month survival rates were higher with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab in treatment-naive (PFS 31.0% versus 14.6%; OS 58.0% versus 44.7%) and previously treated patients (PFS 25.7% versus 11.3%; OS 49.2% versus 37.9%). Twenty-four-month survival rates were higher with pembrolizumab than with ipilimumab in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours (PFS 33.2% versus 13.1%; OS 58.4% versus 45.0%) and similar in PD-L1-negative tumours (PFS 14.9% versus NR [no data at 24 months for a PFS estimate]; OS 43.6% versus 31.8%). Safety of pembrolizumab by subgroup was consistent with previous reports., Conclusions: Findings support pembrolizumab monotherapy as standard of care in patients with advanced melanoma, regardless of first- or second-line therapy or PD-L1 status. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT01866319., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib plus the MEK inhibitor trametinib improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. We sought to determine whether adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib would improve outcomes in patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations., Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 870 patients with completely resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive oral dabrafenib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib at a dose of 2 mg once daily (combination therapy, 438 patients) or two matched placebo tablets (432 patients) for 12 months. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, freedom from relapse, and safety., Results: At a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the estimated 3-year rate of relapse-free survival was 58% in the combination-therapy group and 39% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.58; P<0.001). The 3-year overall survival rate was 86% in the combination-therapy group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.79; P=0.0006), but this level of improvement did not cross the prespecified interim analysis boundary of P=0.000019. Rates of distant metastasis-free survival and freedom from relapse were also higher in the combination-therapy group than in the placebo group. The safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib was consistent with that observed with the combination in patients with metastatic melanoma., Conclusions: Adjuvant use of combination therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a significantly lower risk of recurrence in patients with stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations than the adjuvant use of placebo and was not associated with new toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01682083 ; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15 .).

Purpose: Encorafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi), has a pharmacologic profile that is distinct from that of other clinically active BRAFis. We evaluated encorafenib in a phase I study in patients with BRAFi treatment-naïve and pretreated BRAF -mutant melanoma. Experimental Design: The pharmacologic activity of encorafenib was first characterized preclinically. Encorafenib monotherapy was then tested across a range of once-daily (50-700 mg) or twice-daily (75-150 mg) regimens in a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation and -expansion study in adult patients with histologically confirmed advanced/metastatic BRAF -mutant melanoma. Study objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D), characterize the safety and tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile, and assess the preliminary antitumor activity of encorafenib. Results: Preclinical data demonstrated that encorafenib inhibited BRAF V600E kinase activity with a prolonged off-rate and suppressed proliferation and tumor growth of BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma models. In the dose-escalation phase, 54 patients (29 BRAFi-pretreated and 25 BRAFi-naïve) were enrolled. Seven patients in the dose-determining set experienced dose-limiting toxicities. Encorafenib at a dose of 300 mg once daily was declared the RP2D. In the expansion phase, the most common all-cause adverse events were nausea (66%), myalgia (63%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (54%). In BRAFi-naïve patients, the overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) were 60% and 12.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.4-not reached (NR)]. In BRAFi-pretreated patients, the ORR and mPFS were 22% and 1.9 months (95% CI, 0.9-3.7). Conclusions: Once-daily dosing of single-agent encorafenib had a distinct tolerability profile and showed varying antitumor activity across BRAFi-pretreated and BRAFi-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res; 23(18); 5339-48. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) expression in dendritic cells (DCs) inhibits T-cell activation and promotes T-cell differentiation into regulatory T-cells. Moreover, IDO expression promotes resistance to immunotherapies targeting immune checkpoints such as the cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4). Here, a patient with metastatic melanoma pretreated with ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 blocking antibody, was vaccinated with IDO-silenced DCs cotransfected with mRNA for survivin or hTERT tumour antigens. During vaccination, T-cell responses to survivin and hTERT tumour antigens were generated, and a certain degree of clinical benefit was achieved, with a significant reduction in lung, liver, and skin metastases, along with a better performance status. T-cell responses against MART-1 and NY-ESO-1 tumour antigens were also detected in the peripheral blood. The patient also mounted an antibody response to several melanoma proteins, indicating diversification of the antitumour immunity in this patient. The identification of such serum antibody-reacting proteins could facilitate the discovery of tumour neoantigens.

Background: The incidence of malignant melanoma in Norway is among the highest in the world and rising, with approximately 1 500 persons receiving the diagnosis annually. Correct surgical primary treatment cures 80-90%, while 10-20% experience relapses. The treatment of a metastatic malignant melanoma has changed considerably in the last 1-2 years as a result of clinical experience with new drugs. The current publication provides an updated overview of the treatment of malignant melanoma in Norway., Method: The article is based on a search in PubMed and on the authors' own research and clinical experience., Results: After several decades with almost no change in the treatment of malignant melanoma, we have seen a positive development over the past couple of years. New treatment methods for malignant melanoma with distant spreading metastases have yielded favourable results in selected patients and are currently established in cancer departments in Norway., Interpretation: Rapid and correct primary treatment is curing most patients with malignant melanoma. New drugs offer hope for selected patient groups with metastatic disease. Several new types of targeted treatment are being tested in clinical studies in Norway and elsewhere in the world.

Background: The growth and recurrence of several cancers appear to be driven by a population of cancer stem cells (CSCs). Glioblastoma, the most common primary brain tumor, is invariably fatal, with a median survival of approximately 1 year. Although experimental data have suggested the importance of CSCs, few data exist regarding the potential relevance and importance of these cells in a clinical setting., Methods: We here present the first seven patients treated with a dendritic cell (DC)-based vaccine targeting CSCs in a solid tumor. Brain tumor biopsies were dissociated into single-cell suspensions, and autologous CSCs were expanded in vitro as tumorspheres. From these, CSC-mRNA was amplified and transfected into monocyte-derived autologous DCs. The DCs were aliquoted to 9-18 vaccines containing 10(7) cells each. These vaccines were injected intradermally at specified intervals after the patients had received a standard 6-week course of post-operative radio-chemotherapy. The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00846456., Results: Autologous CSC cultures were established from ten out of eleven tumors. High-quality RNA was isolated, and mRNA was amplified in all cases. Seven patients were able to be weaned from corticosteroids to receive DC immunotherapy. An immune response induced by vaccination was identified in all seven patients. No patients developed adverse autoimmune events or other side effects. Compared to matched controls, progression-free survival was 2.9 times longer in vaccinated patients (median 694 vs. 236 days, p = 0.0018, log-rank test)., Conclusion: These findings suggest that vaccination against glioblastoma stem cells is safe, well-tolerated, and may prolong progression-free survival.

Background: Patients with metastatic melanoma, 50% of whose tumours harbour a BRAF mutation, have a poor prognosis. Selumetinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and in preclinical models when combined with chemotherapy. This study was designed to look for a signal of improved efficacy by comparing the combination of selumetinib and dacarbazine with dacarbazine alone., Methods: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study investigated selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned by central interactive voice response system (1:1 ratio, block size four) to take either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21-day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle). Patients, investigators, and the study team were masked to the treatment assigned. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00936221., Findings: Between July 20, 2009, and April 8, 2010, 91 patients were randomly assigned to receive dacarbazine in combination with selumetinib (n=45) or placebo (n=46). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (median 13·9 months, 80% CI 10·2-15·6, in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group and 10·5 months, 9·6-14·7, in the placebo plus dacarbazine group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 80% CI 0·67-1·28, one-sided p=0·39). However, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group versus the placebo plus dacarbazine group (HR 0·63, 80% CI 0·47-0·84, one-sided p=0·021), with a median of 5·6 months (80% CI 4·9-5·9) versus 3·0 months (2·8-4·6), respectively. The most frequent adverse events included nausea (28 [64%] of 44 patients on selumetinib vs 25 [56%] of 45 on placebo), acneiform dermatitis (23 [52%] vs one [2%]), diarrhoea (21 [48%] vs 13 [29%]), vomiting (21 [48%] vs 15 [33%]), and peripheral oedema (19 [43%] vs three [7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (six [14%] patients in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group vs four [9%] in the placebo plus dacarbazine group)., Interpretation: Selumetinib plus dacarbazine showed clinical activity in patients with BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma, reflected by a significant benefit in progression-free survival compared with placebo plus dacarbazine group, although no significant change in overall survival was noted. The tolerability of this combination was generally consistent with monotherapy safety profiles., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This is the first clinical study of the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD8330 (ARRY-424704). This phase I study defined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of AZD8330 in patients with advanced malignancies., Methods: Patients with refractory cancer or cancer with no standard therapy received either once-daily (OD) or twice-daily (BID) oral AZD8330 on day 1 followed by a 7-day washout period and continuous dosing from day 8. The starting dose was 0.5 mg with dose escalations in subsequent cohorts until a non-tolerated dose was reached., Results: Eighty-two patients received AZD8330 across 11 cohorts. The most frequent AZD8330-related adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (13/82, 16%), fatigue (11/82, 13%), diarrhoea (11/82, 13%) and vomiting (9/82, 11%). Four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities: mental status changes (40 mg OD; 2/9 patients and 60 mg OD; 1/3) and rash (20 mg BID; 1/9). The MTD was defined as 20mg BID. AZD8330 exposure increased approximately proportionally with dose across the dose range 0.5-60 mg OD. Dose-dependent modulation of phosphorylated ERK in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was observed at doses ≥3 mg. One patient had a partial response and thirty-two (39%) had stable disease, with a duration >3 months in 22 patients, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors., Conclusion: AZD8330 has a manageable toxicity profile at the MTD of 20 mg BID, and target inhibition was confirmed in PBMCs. One patient with malignant melanoma had a partial response., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Activating mutations in serine-threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF) are found in 50% of patients with advanced melanoma. Selective BRAF-inhibitor therapy improves survival, as compared with chemotherapy, but responses are often short-lived. In previous trials, MEK inhibition appeared to be promising in this population., Methods: In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned 322 patients who had metastatic melanoma with a V600E or V600K BRAF mutation to receive either trametinib, an oral selective MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio. Patients received trametinib (2 mg orally) once daily or intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to receive trametinib. Progression-free survival was the primary end point, and overall survival was a secondary end point., Results: Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months in the trametinib group and 1.5 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the trametinib group, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63; P<0.001). At 6 months, the rate of overall survival was 81% in the trametinib group and 67% in the chemotherapy group despite crossover (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92; P=0.01). Rash, diarrhea, and peripheral edema were the most common toxic effects in the trametinib group and were managed with dose interruption and dose reduction; asymptomatic and reversible reduction in the cardiac ejection fraction and ocular toxic effects occurred infrequently. Secondary skin neoplasms were not observed., Conclusions: Trametinib, as compared with chemotherapy, improved rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients who had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.).

Background: As a prelude to combination studies aimed at resistance reversal, this dose-escalation/dose-expansion study investigated the selective Src kinase inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel., Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumours received saracatinib once-daily oral tablets in combination with either carboplatin AUC 5 every 3 weeks (q3w), paclitaxel 175 mg m(-2) q3w, paclitaxel 80 mg m(-2) every 1 week (q1w), or carboplatin AUC 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg m(-2) q3w. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability., Results: A total of 116 patients received saracatinib 125 (N=20), 175 (N=44), 225 (N=40), 250 (N=9), or 300 mg (N=3). There were no clear dose-related trends within each chemotherapy regimen group in number or severity of adverse events (AEs). However, combining all groups, the occurrence of grade ≥3 asthenic AEs (all causality) was dose-related (125 mg, 10%; 175 mg, 20%; ≥225 mg, 33%), and grade ≥3 neutropenia occurred more commonly at doses ≥225 mg. There was no evidence that saracatinib affected exposure to carboplatin or paclitaxel, or vice versa. Objective responses were seen in 5 out of 44 patients (11%) receiving carboplatin plus paclitaxel q3w, and 5 out of 24 (21%) receiving paclitaxel q1w., Conclusion: Saracatinib doses up to 175 mg with paclitaxel with/without carboplatin showed acceptable toxicity in most patients, and are suitable for further trials., (© 2012 Cancer Research UK)

Purpose: We report two clinical trials in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients evaluating immune response, toxicity, and clinical outcome after vaccination with the telomerase peptide GV1001: a phase II trial (CTN-2006) in patients vaccinated after chemoradiotherapy and an 8-year update on a previously reported phase I/II trial (CTN-2000)., Experimental Design: CTN-2006: 23 inoperable stage III patients received radiotherapy (2 Gy × 30) and weekly docetaxel (20 mg/m(2)), followed by GV1001 vaccination. CTN-2000: 26 patients were vaccinated with two telomerase peptides (GV1001 and I540). The immune responses were evaluated by T-cell proliferation and cytokine assays., Results: CTN-2006 trial: a GV1001-specific immune response developed in 16/20 evaluable patients. Long-term immunomonitoring showed persisting responses in 13 subjects. Serious adverse events were not observed. Immune responders recorded a median PFS of 371 days, compared with 182 days for nonresponders (P = 0.20). CTN-2000 trial update: 13/24 evaluable subjects developed a GV1001 response. The immune responders achieved increased survival compared with nonresponders (median 19 months vs. 3.5 months; P < 0.001). Follow-up of four long-time survivors showed that they all harbored durable GV1001-specific T-cell memory responses and IFNγ(high)/IL-10(low)/IL-4(low) cytokine profiles. Two patients are free of disease after 108 and 93 months, respectively., Conclusions: Vaccination with GV1001 is well tolerated, immunizes the majority of NSCLC patients and establishes durable T-cell memory. The considerable immune response rate and low toxicity in the phase II trial support the concept of combining chemoradiotherapy with vaccination. The survival advantage observed for immune responders warrants a randomized trial., (©2011 AACR)