Search

BACKGROUND: Tebentafusp, a T-cell receptor-bispecific molecule that targets glycoprotein 100 and CD3, is approved for adult patients who are positive for HLA-A*02:01 and have unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma. The primary analysis in the present phase 3 trial supported a long-term survival benefit associated with the drug. METHODS: We report the 3-year efficacy and safety results from our open-label, phase 3 trial in which HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive tebentafusp (tebentafusp group) or the investigators choice of therapy with pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine (control group), with randomization stratified according to the lactate dehydrogenase level. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, median overall survival was 21.6 months in the tebentafusp group and 16.9 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.87). The estimated percentage of patients surviving at 3 years was 27% in the tebentafusp group and 18% in the control group. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade in the tebentafusp group were rash (83%), pyrexia (76%), pruritus (70%), and hypotension (38%). Most tebentafusp-related adverse events occurred early during treatment, and no new adverse events were observed with long-term administration. The percentage of patients who discontinued treatment because of adverse events continued to be low in both treatment groups (2% in the tebentafusp group and 5% in the control group). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-year analysis supported a continued long-term benefit of tebentafusp for overall survival among adult HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma. (Funded by Immunocore; IMCgp100-202 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03070392; EudraCT number, 2015-003153-18.).

PurposeThe combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and an encouraging complete response rate (CRR) in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase Ib study. We report the efficacy and safety from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, international study of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab (T-VEC-pembrolizumab) versus placebo plus pembrolizumab (placebo-pembrolizumab) in patients with advanced melanoma.MethodsPatients with stage IIIB-IVM1c unresectable melanoma, naïve to antiprogrammed cell death protein-1, were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-VEC-pembrolizumab or placebo-pembrolizumab. T-VEC was administered at ≤ 4 × 106 plaque-forming unit (PFU) followed by ≤ 4 × 108 PFU 3 weeks later and once every 2 weeks until dose 5 and once every 3 weeks thereafter. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously 200 mg once every 3 weeks. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate per mRECIST, CRR, and safety. Here, we report the primary analysis for PFS, the second preplanned interim analysis for OS, and the final analysis.ResultsOverall, 692 patients were randomly assigned (346 T-VEC-pembrolizumab and 346 placebo-pembrolizumab). T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.04; P = .13) or OS (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.22; P = .74) compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was 48.6% for T-VEC-pembrolizumab (CRR 17.9%) and 41.3% for placebo-pembrolizumab (CRR 11.6%); the durable response rate was 42.2% and 34.1% for the arms, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of patients in the T-VEC-pembrolizumab arm and in 19.5% of patients in the placebo-pembrolizumab arm.ConclusionT-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS or OS compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. Safety results of the T-VEC-pembrolizumab combination were consistent with the safety profiles of each agent alone.

This study examined the efficiency of teaching Russian as a foreign language (L2) in two groups of students -- the first benefited from the e-learning platform's capabilities (experimental), and the second underwent a traditional in-class course. Students learning Russian as L2 at People's Friendship University of Russia (Moscow, Russia) were enrolled in the experiment. The research sample comprised 75 individuals distributed to three experimental groups and 33 individuals allocated to three control groups. All data obtained as a result of the study were statistically analyzed. In order to study the overall effect of using the iSpring platform, the research outcomes were combined by Stouffer's Z-score method. Together with this, at each examination stage, repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. Students' progress in learning Russian was evaluated by way of pre- and post-testing. After the experiment finished, all respondents were surveyed to analyze their perception of the effectiveness, convenience, and satisfaction of the chosen learning mode. The study found that students from experimental groups spent significantly more time for learning, demonstrating better performance. It was remarked that iSpring's adaptive learning features contribute to improving students' performance by encouraging them to learn better and faster.

Background: Prolgolimab is the first Russian PD-1 inhibitor approved for the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma and advanced non-small cell lung cancer. It was approved in two weight-based regimens of 1 mg/kg Q2W and 3 mg/kg Q3W, but because of re-evaluation of weight-based dosing paradigm, studying of a fixed-dose regimen was considered perspective. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, single-arm, open-label efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety study to obtain data that would allow the approval of the new flat dosing regimen of prolgolimab in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma (BCD-100-8/FLAT, NCT05783882). The primary objective was to prove the non-inferiority of prolgolimab 250 mg Q3W versus prolgolimab 1 mg/kg Q2W for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma in terms of ORR according to RECIST 1.1. Patients from the MIRACULUM study (BCD-100-2/MIRACULUM, NCT03269565) comprised a historical control group. Results: One hundred fourteen patients received prolgolimab 250 mg Q3W, and 61 patients received prolgolimab (Prolgo) 1 mg/kg Q2W (historical control). Objective response was achieved by 33.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 24.8, 42.8] of patients in the Prolgo 250 mg group compared with 32.8% (95% CI: 21.3, 46.0) of patients in the Prolgo 1 mg/kg group. Risk difference was 0.00, 95% CI (-0.12; NA), p = 0.0082. Both regimens were well tolerated, and safety profiles were comparable. The pharmacokinetic analysis (PK) showed that the regimen with the fixed dose of 250 mg Q3W was characterized by higher PK parameters. The immunogenicity study did not detect binding antibodies to prolgolimab in any of the subjects. Conclusion: The obtained results showed that the selected fixed dosing regimen of prolgolimab 250 mg Q3W is characterized by efficacy and safety parameters comparable to that observed for the 1 mg/kg Q2W regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Among several treatment options for BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma, a combination of BRAF inhibitor, MEK inhibitor, and anti-PDL1 antibody seems to be a new emergent approach recently registered in the Russian Federation. It is still not clear which patient population benefits more from this simultaneous use of three drugs instead of its sequencing., Aim: This study aimed to evaluate patients' characteristics treated in real practice in 14 Russian regions by triple combination and to analyze their outcomes depending on biomarkers (PD-L1 expression)., Methods: This was a part (cohort A1) of a prospective non-interventional study of clinical outcomes and biomarkers in patients with skin melanoma. Patients were included in cohort A1 if combination treatment with vemurafenib (vem) + cobimetinib (cobi) + atezolizumab (atezo) was initiated no earlier than 12 weeks (84 days) prior to written informed consent to participate in this study. The index event was the initiation of therapy with all three drugs vem + cobi + atezo (i.e., triple combination). The primary efficacy endpoint of the study was the 24-month overall survival (OS), defined as the time from the index date to the date of death from any cause. If the patient did not experience an event, the OS will be censored at the date of the last contact. Objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), and progression-free survival (PFS) in the Intention to treat (ITT) population, in biomarker positive population, and in population with brain metastases were also evaluated. Quality of life questionnaires were pre-planned by protocol if it was a part of routine practice. Adverse events were also collected., Results: Between March 2021 and May 2023, 59 patients were enrolled in 19 centers from 14 regions of Russia. Thirty-one of 59 (52.4%) patients had central nervous system metastases, and 18 of 31 (58.4%) were symptomatic. Forty of 59 patients (68%) received the triple combination as the first-line treatment. The median follow-up period was 16.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.8-19.8] months. The mean duration of therapy with this regimen was 9.95 months (95% CI 7.48-13.8). ORR was 55.1%; progression as the best outcome was seen in 16.3%. The median DoR was 12.95 months (95% CI 11.0-14.8 months), with a median of 20.3 months (95% CI 9.1-31.5 months) when triple therapy was administered in the first-line treatment. In patients with brain metastases ( N = 31), ORR was 45.1%; the median DoR was 12.95 (95% CI 11.0-14.8 months). The median PFS in the entire population was 13.6 months (95% CI 8.6-18.6); the 24-month PFS was 22%. The estimated median OS in the entire population was 15.8 months (95% CI NA); 24-month OS was 45% (95% CI 0.32-0.64). In multivariate Cox regression model, biomarkers of interest [lactate dehydrogenase, Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)] did not have statistically significant impact on PFS, OS, or DoR probably due to high data missing rate. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Grades 3-4 AEs were seen in 23 of 59 patients (38%) with most common were skin and liver toxicity., Conclusion: Triple combination of atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib had proven its efficacy and tolerability in real settings. No impact of potential predictive biomarkers was seen (NCT05402059)., Competing Interests: IS: speaker at Roche, Novartis, Biocad, Swixx BioPharma, R-Pharm, and Pierre Fabre. YK: Roche Moscow employee. LD: speaker at Roche, Novartis, Biocad, Swixx BioPharma, and Pierre Fabre. 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. The authors declare that this study received funding from Roche. The funder had the following involvement in the study: grant for PD-L1 testing. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication., (Copyright © 2024 Samoylenko, Kolontareva, Kogay, Zhukova, Utyashev, Ivannikov, Menshikov, Zinkevich, Orlova, Vakhabova, Volkonsky, Beliaeva, Butkov, Karabina, Moskovkina, Moshkova, Plishkina, Sychev, Cheplukhova, Chernova, Yurchenkov, Babina, Savelov and Demidov.)

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 BRAF V600 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 BRAF V600 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PAA reports grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer/Array, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Pfizer/Array, Lunaphore, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTx, and Replimmune; travel support from Pfizer; and advisory board member for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Immunocore, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncosec, Nouscom, Seagen, and iTeos. HG reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi/Regeneron; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Novartis, and Iovance Biotherapeutics; travel, accommodation, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, and Pfizer; and a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi/Regeneron. CR reports consulting fees from Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; and payment or honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. KL reports honoraria from Array Biopharma and Iovance Biotherapeutics; a consulting or advisory role for Array Biopharma, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Nektar, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding from Alkermes, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Kartos Therapeutics, Merck, Nektar, Neon Therapeutics, OncoSec, Regeneron, Replimune, Roche/Genentech, Seagen, Senhwa Biosciences, and Ultimovacs; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Alkermes, Merck, Neon Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Roche/Genentech. SP reports honoraria from Biocad, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; speakers bureau for Biocad, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and research funding from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Biocad. RPP reports speakers bureau for Roche and Bristol Myers Squibb and research funding from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, and AstraZeneca. TE reports a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Sanofi/Regeneron, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre and speakers bureau for Almirall Hermal. PR reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Merck; speaker's bureau for Pfizer, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; consulting fee from Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Philogen; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Orphan Europe and Pierre Fabre. LD reports honoraria from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis and research funding from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Amgen. NZ reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, MSD Oncology, and AstraZeneca/Merck; consulting fees from Roche, MSD Oncology, Merck; and travel and accommodation expenses from MSD Oncology and Roche. JS reports a consultant or advisory role for Merck Sharp & Dohme and Bristol Myers Squibb. YY and IC report employment with Genentech and stock or other ownership with Roche/Genentech. CH and CX report employment with Roche. LK reports employment and ownership non-voting shares for Roche. GAM reports research funding to his institution from Genentech/Roche and Bristol Myers Squibb. RG reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Immunocore; a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, 4SC, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, and Immunocore; research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma. DS declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)