Daniil Stroyakovskiy, Yu Guo, Isabelle Rooney, P. Francesco Ferrucci, Keith T. Flaherty, Zeynep Eroglu, Jacopo Pigozzo, S. Troutman, Jacek Mackiewicz, S. Mulla, Athina Voulgari, Piotr Rutkowski, Bethany Pitcher, Brigitte Dréno, Lev V. Demidov, J.M.G. Larkin, A. Arance, M. Castro, Helen Gogas, Yibing Yan, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA), Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes), Centre d’Investigation Clinique de Nantes (CIC Nantes), Université de Nantes (UN)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes), Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie et Immunologie Nantes-Angers (CRCINA), Université d'Angers (UA)-Université de Nantes (UN)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Centre hospitalier universitaire de Nantes (CHU Nantes), Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow City Oncology Hospital No. 62 [Moscow, Russia] (MCOH), H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, European Institute of Oncology [Milan] (ESMO), Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS [Padua, Italy], Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology [Krakow, Poland], Poznan University of Medical Sciences [Poland] (PUMS), Genentech, Inc. [San Francisco], Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche [Basel], Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center [Boston, MA, USA], Harvard Medical School [Boston] (HMS), Hospital Clinic [Barcelona, Spain], and Malbec, Odile
International audience; Background: Emerging data suggest that the combination of MEK inhibitors and immunotherapeutic agents may result in improved efficacy in melanoma. We evaluated whether combining MEK inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition was more efficacious than immune checkpoint inhibition alone in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 wild-type advanced melanoma. Patients and methods: IMspire170 was an international, randomized, open-label, phase III study. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive cobimetinib (60 mg, days 1-21) plus anti-programmed death-ligand 1 atezolizumab (840 mg every 2 weeks) in 28-day cycles or anti-programmed death-1 pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) alone until loss of clinical benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. Results: Between 11 December 2017, and 29 January 2019, 446 patients were randomized to receive cobimetinib plus atezolizumab (n ¼ 222) or pembrolizumab (n ¼ 224). Median follow-up was 7.1 months [interquartile range (IQR) 4.8-9.9] for cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and 7.2 months (IQR 4.9-10.1) for pembrolizumab. Median PFS was 5.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8-7.2] with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab versus 5.7 months (95% CI 3.7-9.6) with pembrolizumab [stratified hazard ratio 1.15 (95% CI 0.88-1.50); P ¼ 0.30]. Hazard ratios for PFS were consistent across prespecified subgroups. In exploratory biomarker analyses, higher tumor mutational burden was associated with improved clinical outcomes in both treatment arms. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) were increased blood creatine phosphokinase (10.0% with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab versus 0.9% with pembrolizumab), diarrhea (7.7% versus 1.9%), rash (6.8% versus 0.9%), hypertension (6.4% versus 3.7%), and dermatitis acneiform (5.0% versus 0). Serious AEs occurred in 44.1% of patients with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and 20.8% with pembrolizumab. Conclusion: Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab did not improve PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600 wild-type advanced melanoma.