Search

Serous retinopathy can be associated with MEK inhibitors, including cobimetinib. We present results of an integrated safety analysis to further characterize ocular functional and structural changes due to serous retinopathy.Four studies evaluating cobimetinib at the approved dose and schedule in combination with other oncology drugs were included. Study CO39721 incorporated standardized ophthalmologic assessments to fully characterize serous retinopathy events over time and was the primary study for analysis. Supporting information was provided by studies GO28141, WO29479, and GO30182.In total, 655 patients received one or more doses of cobimetinib and comprised the safety-evaluable population. Overall, 117 patients (17.9%) had one or more serous retinopathy events, 24 (3.7%) had two or more events, and four (0.6%) had three or more events. Grade 3 events occurred in 2.5% of patients. In CO39721, the median time to onset was 15 days (range 7-111); median time to resolution of first occurrence was 26 days (range 6-591 + days). Twelve of 25 patients (48.0%) recovered without a dose modification and 4/25 (16.0%) were recovered/recovering following a dose modification. The most frequent presentation of serous retinopathy was focal subretinal fluid on optical coherence tomography (62.8% of cases); in some instances (25.7% of cases), subretinal fluid was multifocal. There was no loss of visual function or visual acuity at serous retinopathy onset or resolution.Results from this integrated safety analysis indicate that cobimetinib-associated serous retinopathy can be managed with or without a dose modification of cobimetinib at the discretion of the treating physician. No visual loss or permanent retinal damage was identified on comprehensive ophthalmologic assessments.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03178851, NCT01689519, NCT02322814, and NCT02788279.

Supplementary Figure S3. Association of the cell cycle/immune signature with B, lactate dehydrogenase levels.

Supplementary Table S2 from Genomic Features of Exceptional Response in Vemurafenib ± Cobimetinib–treated Patients with BRAFV600-mutated Metastatic Melanoma

Purpose: The association of tumor gene expression profiles with progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib was evaluated.Experimental Design: Gene expression of archival tumor samples from patients in four trials (BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM) was evaluated. Genes significantly associated with PFS (P < 0.05) were identified by univariate Cox proportional hazards modeling, then subjected to unsupervised hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis, and recursive partitioning to develop optimized gene signatures.Results: Forty-six genes were identified as significantly associated with PFS in both BRIM-2 (n = 63) and the vemurafenib arm of BRIM-3 (n = 160). Two distinct signatures were identified: cell cycle and immune. Among vemurafenib-treated patients, the cell-cycle signature was associated with shortened PFS compared with the immune signature in the BRIM-2/BRIM-3 training set [hazard ratio (HR) 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3–2.6, P = 0.0001] and in the coBRIM validation set (n = 101; HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0–2.5; P = 0.08). The adverse impact of the cell-cycle signature on PFS was not observed in patients treated with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib (n = 99; HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7–1.8; P = 0.66).Conclusions: In vemurafenib-treated patients, the cell-cycle gene signature was associated with shorter PFS. However, in cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib-treated patients, both cell cycle and immune signature subgroups had comparable PFS. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib may abrogate the adverse impact of the cell-cycle signature. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5238–45. ©2017 AACR.

Purpose: Previous investigations identified transcriptional signatures associated with innate resistance to anti–programmed cell death protein 1 therapy in melanoma. This analysis aimed to increase understanding of the role of baseline genetic features in the variability of response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy for BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma.Patients and Methods: This exploratory analysis compared genomic features, using whole-exome and RNA sequencing, of baseline tumors from patients who had complete response versus rapid progression (disease progression at first postbaseline assessment) on treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib or vemurafenib alone. Associations of gene expression with progression-free survival or overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling.Results: Whole-exome sequencing showed that MITF and TP53 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with rapid progression, while NF1 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with complete response. However, the low frequency of alterations in any one gene precluded their characterization as drivers of response/resistance. Analysis of RNA profiles showed that expression of immune response–related genes was enriched in tumors from patients with complete response, while expression of keratinization-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients who experienced rapid progression.Conclusions: These findings suggest that enriched immune infiltration might be a shared feature favoring response to both targeted and immune therapies, while features of innate resistance to targeted and immune therapies were distinct.

Supplementary Materials and Methods; Supplementary Tables S1-S4.

Supplementary Data from Genomic Features of Exceptional Response in Vemurafenib ± Cobimetinib–treated Patients with BRAFV600-mutated Metastatic Melanoma

Legends

Purpose: Inappropriate activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway in skin is critical for the development of basal cell carcinomas (BCC). We have investigated the anti-BCC efficacy of topically-applied CUR61414, an inhibitor of the Hh signal transduction molecule Smoothened.Experimental Design: In preclinical studies, we used a depilatory model to evaluate the ability of topical formulations of CUR61414 to repress Hh responsive cells found at the base of hair follicles in normal skin. We also tested the in vivo effects of topical CUR61414 on murine BCCs developed in Ptch1 +/− K14-CreER2 p53 fl/fl mice. In a phase I clinical study, we evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of a multidose regimen of CUR61414 (0.09%, 0.35%, 1.1%, and 3.1%) applied topically to human superficial or nodular BCCs for up to 28 days.Results: In mice, topical CUR61414 significantly inhibited skin Hh signaling, blocked the induction of hair follicle anagen, and shrank existing BCCs. However, we observed no clinical activity of this formulation in human superficial or nodular BCCs in a phase I clinical study.Conclusions: Our data highlight some of the challenges of translating preclinical experience into successful human results for a topical anticancer agent. Clin Cancer Res; 17(10); 3378–87. ©2011 AACR.

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 BRAFThe 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.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.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 BRAFF Hoffmann-La Roche.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with advanced BRAFThis phase 1b, open-label, international multicentre study enrolled 3 cohorts. Herein, we report on patients in cohorts A and B who had progressed on prior anti‒PD-1 therapy. Patients in cohort A received cobimetinib 60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day break and concurrent intravenous atezolizumab 840 mg every 2 weeks. Patients in cohort B received the same dosing regimen as cohort A except for cycle 1 in which patients received cobimetinib only for the first 14 days prior to initiation of atezolizumab on cycle 1 day 15. Coprimary end-points were objective response rate and disease control rate. Secondary end-points were duration of response, progression free survival and overall survival.Between 19th June 2017 and 12th December 2018, 103 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 6.9 months (interquartile range, 4.8-10.1 months); objective response rate was 14.6% and disease control rate was 38.8% (95% confidence interval, 29.39-48.94). The median duration of response, progression-free survival and overall survival was 12.7 months, 3.8 months and 14.7 months, respectively. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (75/103; 72.8%), dermatitis acneiform (57/103; 55.3%) and nausea (52/103; 50.5%). Thirty-four patients (33.0%) died: 33 (91.7%) due to progressive disease and one (1%) due to treatment-related oesophagitis.Combination therapy with cobimetinib and atezolizumab in patients with advanced BRAFThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03178851.

Summary Long-term use of vismodegib is associated with treatment-emergent adverse drug reactions in clinical trials of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) and metastatic BCC (mBCC). Treatment interruptions have been recommended for management of adverse drug reactions, but there is no clear guidance on the duration of those interruptions. A model-based evaluation was conducted to assess the impact of treatment interruptions on vismodegib efficacy. A tumor growth–inhibition model was developed and model-based simulations were performed to assess the proportion of patients achieving ≥30% reduction from baseline in tumor size (ie, proportion of responders) for various dosing schedules. The most conservative simulated scenario compared an intermittent dosing schedule of 12 weeks of vismodegib treatment followed by 8-week dosing interruption (repeated four times for a total duration of 80 weeks) versus 80 weeks of continuous dosing, which predicted a decrease in responders of –4.7% from 90.7% in laBCC and –3.7% from 63.0% in mBCC. These results demonstrated maintenance of vismodegib efficacy with the intermittent dosing schedule and support the recently approved recommendations of treatment interruptions of up to 8 weeks to manage tolerability in laBCC or mBCC patients in the vismodegib US prescribing information.

Anti-programmed death-1 agents are an established option for advanced melanoma, but the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab, an agent approved for the treatment of multiple solid tumors, was not previously evaluated. This phase 1b study cohort (NCT03178851; cohort C) evaluated first-line atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks in adults with BRAFV600 wild-type, histologically confirmed, advanced or metastatic melanoma. The co-primary end points were confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and disease control rate (DCR = complete response [CR] +partial response [PR] +stable disease [SD] at 16 weeks). Of 52 enrolled patients, most had lactate dehydrogenase levels lower than the upper limit of normal (77%) and PD-L1-positive tumors (55%). Investigator-assessed confirmed ORR was 35% (95% CI, 22%-49%) and included three CRs (6%) and 15 PRs (29%); DCR was 46%. Median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.1-7.3). The most common any-grade adverse events were anemia (27%), headache (19%), hypertension (19%), constipation (17%), diarrhea (17%), hypothyroidism (17%), asthenia (15%), and pain in extremity (15%). First-line atezolizumab monotherapy is safe and tolerable and has antitumor activity in patients with BRAFV600 wild-type advanced or metastatic melanoma.

We performed a retrospective exploratory analysis to evaluate the prognostic and predictive effect of two circulating biomarkers,This study evaluated patients from BRIM-3, a phase III trial comparing vemurafenib and dacarbazine in 675 patients withPatients with elevated levels of baselineHere, we report that BRIM-3 patients with high levels of ctDNA and cHGF have worse OS regardless of treatment and that these factors are independent prognostic markers for metastatic melanoma.

Purpose: Previous investigations identified transcriptional signatures associated with innate resistance to anti–programmed cell death protein 1 therapy in melanoma. This analysis aimed to increase understanding of the role of baseline genetic features in the variability of response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy for BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma. Patients and Methods: This exploratory analysis compared genomic features, using whole-exome and RNA sequencing, of baseline tumors from patients who had complete response versus rapid progression (disease progression at first postbaseline assessment) on treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib or vemurafenib alone. Associations of gene expression with progression-free survival or overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: Whole-exome sequencing showed that MITF and TP53 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with rapid progression, while NF1 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with complete response. However, the low frequency of alterations in any one gene precluded their characterization as drivers of response/resistance. Analysis of RNA profiles showed that expression of immune response–related genes was enriched in tumors from patients with complete response, while expression of keratinization-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients who experienced rapid progression. Conclusions: These findings suggest that enriched immune infiltration might be a shared feature favoring response to both targeted and immune therapies, while features of innate resistance to targeted and immune therapies were distinct.

9547 Background: Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line A + V + C vs P + V + C in patients (pts) with BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.97; P= 0.025). With median follow-up of 18.9 months at primary analysis, OS data were immature; interim analysis of OS at the time of the primary analysis demonstrated a trend in favor of A + V + C over P + V + C (estimated 2-year OS rate, 60.4% vs 53.1%) (Gutzmer et al. Lancet 2020;395:1835-1844). Herein, we present results from the second interim OS analysis of the IMspire150 study. Methods: IMspire150 enrolled previously untreated pts with stage IV or unresectable stage IIIc BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (n = 514). Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive 28-day cycles of A + V + C (n = 256) or P + V + C (n = 258). Pts received V + C in cycle 1; A or P was added on days 1 and 15 from cycle 2 onwards. The second interim OS analysis was planned after ̃270 OS events were recorded, and was projected to have a minimally detectable difference of HR of 0.74 with a P value boundary of 0.0140. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: At data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 OS events had occurred. Median follow-up was 29.1 months (range, 1-54) for A + V + C and 22.8 months (range, 0-54) for P + V + C. A continued trend toward OS benefit in favor of A + V + C over P + V + C was observed with median OS of 39.0 vs 25.8 months, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06; P= 0.1432). A delayed treatment effect was observed, with landmark OS rates for A + V + C vs P + V + C of 76.1% vs 76.5% at 12 months and 61.5% vs 53.3% at 24 months. With additional follow-up, A + V + C continued to show PFS benefit over P + V + C (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97; P= 0.0224); overall response rates (66.7% vs 65.0%) and median duration of response (21.0 vs 12.6 months) remained consistent with those reported at primary analysis. No new safety signals were observed with additional follow-up. Conclusions: With further follow-up, A + V + C demonstrated a consistent, but not statistically significant, improvement in OS and continued benefit in duration of response versus P + V + C in previously untreated pts with BRAFV600 mutation–positive advanced melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT02908672.

Anti-programmed death-1 agents are an established option for advanced melanoma, but the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab, an agent approved for the treatment of multiple solid tumors, was not previously evaluated. This phase 1b study cohort (NCT03178851; cohort C) evaluated first-line atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks in adults with BRAF

Purpose We performed a retrospective exploratory analysis to evaluate the prognostic and predictive effect of two circulating biomarkers, BRAFV600 mutant circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and circulating hepatocyte growth factor (cHGF), in metastatic melanoma. Materials and Methods This study evaluated patients from BRIM-3, a phase III trial comparing vemurafenib and dacarbazine in 675 patients with BRAFV600 mutated advanced melanoma. ctDNA was measured using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction, and cHGF was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Partitioning analysis was used to group patients into risk categories. Results Patients with elevated levels of baseline BRAFV600 ctDNA had significantly shorter median OS than those with undetectable levels of ctDNA (vemurafenib arm, 9.9 v 21.4 months, respectively, and dacarbazine arm: 6.1 v 21.0 months, respectively). Median OS was also shorter in patients with high levels of cHGF compared with those with low cHGF (vemurafenib arm, 11.9 v 17.3 months, respectively, and dacarbazine arm, 6.1 v 14.4 months, respectively). In a multivariable proportional hazards model with adjustment for lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, disease stage, and treatment, ctDNA and cHGF were both independent prognostic factors for OS, (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.28 for high v undetectable ctDNA; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.53 for high v low cHGF). Using partitioning analysis, we found that patients with elevated ctDNA combined with elevated cHGF constituted the highest risk group with significantly shorter OS. Conclusion Here, we report that BRIM-3 patients with high levels of ctDNA and cHGF have worse OS regardless of treatment and that these factors are independent prognostic markers for metastatic melanoma.

Purpose: The association of tumor gene expression profiles with progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib was evaluated. Experimental Design: Gene expression of archival tumor samples from patients in four trials (BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM) was evaluated. Genes significantly associated with PFS (P < 0.05) were identified by univariate Cox proportional hazards modeling, then subjected to unsupervised hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis, and recursive partitioning to develop optimized gene signatures. Results: Forty-six genes were identified as significantly associated with PFS in both BRIM-2 (n = 63) and the vemurafenib arm of BRIM-3 (n = 160). Two distinct signatures were identified: cell cycle and immune. Among vemurafenib-treated patients, the cell-cycle signature was associated with shortened PFS compared with the immune signature in the BRIM-2/BRIM-3 training set [hazard ratio (HR) 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3–2.6, P = 0.0001] and in the coBRIM validation set (n = 101; HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0–2.5; P = 0.08). The adverse impact of the cell-cycle signature on PFS was not observed in patients treated with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib (n = 99; HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7–1.8; P = 0.66). Conclusions: In vemurafenib-treated patients, the cell-cycle gene signature was associated with shorter PFS. However, in cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib-treated patients, both cell cycle and immune signature subgroups had comparable PFS. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib may abrogate the adverse impact of the cell-cycle signature. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5238–45. ©2017 AACR.

9523 Background: The phase 3 IMspire150 study showed that first-line A+V+C improved investigator-assessed PFS vs placebo (P)+V+C in BRAFV600E/K mutation–positive advanced melanoma (hazard ratio 0.78; P=.0249). Prior biomarker analyses showed that IFN-g or TMB > 10 mut/Mb were associated with greater PFS benefits with A+V+C (Lewis et al. J ImmunoTher Cancer 2020;8:A188-A189). We further evaluated the association of these biomarkers with outcomes. Methods: Exploratory recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to model associations between PFS and age ( < 65 vs ≥65 y), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1), liver metastases (yes vs no), metastatic sites (≤3 vs > 3), sum of longest tumor diameters ( < 44 mm vs ≥44 mm), baseline LDH (normal [n] vs elevated [e]), TMB ( < 10 vs ≥10 mut/Mb), PD-L1 (negative vs positive), and IFN-g (high [h; > Quartile 3; Q3] vs intermediate [ > Q1 and ≤Q3] vs low [≤Q1]). Time-to-event analyses were summarized using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: The RPA analysis included 208/256 (81.3%) patients (pts) from the A+V+C arm of IMspire150 for whom LDH, TMB, IFN-g, and PD-L1 data were available. RPA showed that LDH was associated with PFS. In pts treated with A+V+C and n-LDH, h-IFN-g signature was associated with longer PFS and higher rates of objective response (OR) and complete response (CR) vs low/intermediate (l/i) IFN-g (2-y PFS: 59% vs 38%; ORR: 77% vs 69%; CR: 38% vs 15%, respectively); TMB ≥10 mut/Mb was associated with more favorable outcomes in pts with e-LDH (Table). In contrast, neither IFN-g nor TMB discriminated PFS outcomes in n-LDH or e-LDH pt subgroups receiving P+V+C. Pts with e-LDH and TMB < 10 mut/Mb had poor PFS outcomes, with 2-y PFS rates of 9% and 3% and lower rates of OR (51% and 62%) and CR (5% and 9%) in the A+V+C and P+V+C arms, respectively. Similar trends were observed for duration of response (DOR), and for the subset of pts with BRAFV600E mutation–positive melanoma. A+V+C improved PFS vs P+V+C across all subgroups with the exception of e-LDH and TMB < 10. Conclusions: IFN-g and TMB discriminated PFS benefit in pts receiving A+V+C but not for those receiving P+V+C. Durable responses were observed for pts treated with A+V+C in the n-LDH + h-IFNg subgroups.[Table: see text]

Vismodegib (Erivedge, Genentech-Roche) is the first in class of Hedgehog pathway inhibitors approved for treatment of metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC), or locally advanced BCC that has recurred after surgery or is not amenable to surgery or radiation. Its path to discovery has been unique and traces its origin to corn lilies, sheep, Drosophila flies, and the Hedgehog signaling pathway. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(5):506-508.

PURPOSE: Previous investigations identified transcriptional signatures associated with innate resistance to anti–programmed cell death protein 1 therapy in melanoma. This analysis aimed to increase understanding of the role of baseline genetic features in the variability of response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy for BRAF(V600)-mutated metastatic melanoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This exploratory analysis compared genomic features, using whole exome and RNA sequencing, of baseline tumors from patients who had complete response versus rapid progression (disease progression at first postbaseline assessment) on treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib or vemurafenib alone. Associations of gene expression with progression-free survival or overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Whole exome sequencing showed that MITF and TP53 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with rapid progression, while NF1 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with complete response. However, the low frequency of alterations in any one gene precluded their characterization as drivers of response/resistance. Analysis of RNA profiles showed that expression of immune response–related genes was enriched in tumors from patients with complete response, while expression of keratinization-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients who experienced rapid progression. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that enriched immune infiltration might be a shared feature favoring response to both targeted and immune therapies, while features of innate resistance to targeted and immune therapies were distinct.

Information is limited on the use of vismodegib for treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma beyond the setting of clinical trials.To investigate the treatment patterns and characteristics of patients treated with vismodegib in clinical practice.A longitudinal, retrospective cohort study was undertaken using data from a US commercial insurance claims (Truven Health Analytics MarketScan) database. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age, with ≥1 claim for vismodegib from January 2012 to December 2015.A total of 321 patients were included in the analysis. Approximately 20% of the patients took 1 or more treatment breaks of ≥ 30 days each before treatment discontinuation. Median duration of vismodegib treatment before the first treatment break and discontinuation was 4.0 and 5.5 months, respectively. Older age (65 years) and absence of Gorlin syndrome were associated with increased risk for treatment interruption or discontinuation. Overall, 47% and 36% of patients underwent surgery or radiotherapy within the 6 months before and after vismodegib initiation, respectively.Real-world evidence indicates that vismodegib is being used in clinical practice as part of combination treatment strategies. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(2):143-148.

Background The BRIM-3 trial showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600 mutation–positive metastatic melanoma. We present final OS data from BRIM-3. Patients and methods Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). OS and PFS were co-primary end points. OS was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with and without censoring of data for dacarbazine patients who crossed over to vemurafenib. Results Between 4 January 2010 and 16 December 2010, a total of 675 patients were randomized to vemurafenib (n = 337) or dacarbazine (n = 338, of whom 84 crossed over to vemurafenib). At the time of database lock (14 August 2015), median OS, censored at crossover, was significantly longer for vemurafenib than for dacarbazine {13.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.0–15.4] versus 9.7 months [95% CI 7.9–12.8; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.67–0.98]; P = 0.03}, as was median OS without censoring at crossover [13.6 months (95% CI 12.0–15.4) versus 10.3 months (95% CI 9.1–12.8); HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68–0.96); P = 0.01]. Kaplan–Meier estimates of OS rates for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine were 56% versus 46%, 30% versus 24%, 21% versus 19% and 17% versus 16% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. Overall, 173 of the 338 patients (51%) in the dacarbazine arm and 175 of the 337 (52%) of those in the vemurafenib arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, most commonly ipilimumab. Safety data were consistent with the primary analysis. Conclusions Vemurafenib continues to be associated with improved median OS in the BRIM-3 trial after extended follow-up. OS curves converged after ≈3 years, likely as a result of crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib and receipt of subsequent anticancer therapies. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01006980.

Vismodegib (also known as GDC-0449) is a novel small molecule inhibitor of the Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway currently approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in humans. Its tumorigenic potential was assessed in dedicated carcinogenicity studies in rasH2 transgenic (Tg.rasH2) mice and Sprague Dawley (SD) rats. Tumorigenicity potential of vismodegib was identified in rats only and was limited to benign hair follicle tumors, including pilomatricomas and keratoacanthomas at exposures of ≥0.1-fold and ≥0.6-fold, respectively, of the steady-state exposure (AUC0-24h) of the recommended human dose. No malignant tumors were identified in either species. Overall, the totality of pharmacology and nonclinical safety data (lack of genotoxicity, in vitro secondary pharmacological binding, and immunoregulatory effects, and limited effects on the endocrine system) suggests that the development of the benign hair follicle tumors may be related to pharmacologically-mediated disruption of hair follicle morphogenesis, although the exact mechanism of tumorigenesis is unclear. Hair follicle tumors have not been reported in vismodegib-treated patients. The relevance of this finding in rats to patients is uncertain.

Background Treatment options for patients (pts) with BRAFV600 wild type advanced melanoma following failure on anti–programmed death receptor 1 (aPD-1) therapy are limited. Melanoma is strongly driven by MAPK signaling. The MEK inhibitor cobimetinib inhibits MAPK signaling and increases immune cell infiltrate in the tumor, providing a strong rationale for combining cobimetinib with the anti–PD ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab. Methods This multisite, phase Ib study enrolled pts with BRAFV600 wild type advanced melanoma with disease progression on or after aPD-1 therapy (≤12 weeks before study entry) to 2 cohorts. In cohort A, pts received oral cobimetinib 60 mg (once daily, 21 days on, 7 days off) and IV atezolizumab 840 mg (every 2 weeks). In cohort B, pts received identical treatment except in cycle 1, in which cobimetinib was dosed alone for the first 14 days. Paired pretreatment and during-treatment (cycle 2) tumor biopsies were mandated in cohort B. The co-primary endpoints were confirmed objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 and disease control rate (DCR; complete response, partial response [PR], or stable disease [SD] at 16 weeks). Safety was a secondary endpoint (CTCAE v4.0). Results At data cutoff (March 1, 2019), 103 pts were enrolled in cohorts A (n = 92) and B (n = 11); 50 pts had >16 weeks of follow-up and were included in this analysis. Of these 50 pts, 8 (16%) had PR as best confirmed response and 18 (36%) had SD; the DCR was 38% (PR = 8; SD at 16 weeks=11). Prior aPD-1 therapy in 9 pts with unconfirmed PR included pembrolizumab (n = 5), nivolumab (n = 1), pembrolizumab + ipilimumab (n = 2), or nivolumab + ipilimumab (n = 1). For the 7 pts with confirmed PR whose tumor PD-L1 status could be established, 6 were positive (≥1% PD-L1+ cells) and 1 was negative ( Conclusions Preliminary efficacy and safety data for the combination of cobimetinib and atezolizumab in pts who have disease progression on/after prior aPD-1 therapy suggest that this is a feasible and active option warranting further exploration. Clinical trial identification NCT03178851. Editorial acknowledgement ApotheCom, Yardley, PA, USA. Legal entity responsible for the study Roche. Funding Roche. Disclosure S.K. Sandhu: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Serono; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Sharp and Dohme; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen; Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): Endocyte. V.G. Atkinson: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Serono; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Onco-Sec. M. Gonzalez Cao: Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Honoraria (institution): MSD; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Takeda. T. Medina: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Research grant / Funding (institution): Dynavax; Research grant / Funding (institution): Immunocore; Research grant / Funding (institution): Nektar; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech; Research grant / Funding (institution): Checkmate. A. Soria Rivas: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Serono. I. Caro: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Roche Genentech. L. Roberts: Full / Part-time employment: Genentech. Y. Song: Full / Part-time employment: Roche/Genentech. Y. Yan: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Roche/Genentech. G.V. Long: Advisory / Consultancy: Aduro; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Mass-Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Sharp and Dohme; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Oncosec; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche.

Purpose: Inappropriate activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway in skin is critical for the development of basal cell carcinomas (BCC). We have investigated the anti-BCC efficacy of topically-applied CUR61414, an inhibitor of the Hh signal transduction molecule Smoothened. Experimental Design: In preclinical studies, we used a depilatory model to evaluate the ability of topical formulations of CUR61414 to repress Hh responsive cells found at the base of hair follicles in normal skin. We also tested the in vivo effects of topical CUR61414 on murine BCCs developed in Ptch1 +/− K14-CreER2 p53 fl/fl mice. In a phase I clinical study, we evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of a multidose regimen of CUR61414 (0.09%, 0.35%, 1.1%, and 3.1%) applied topically to human superficial or nodular BCCs for up to 28 days. Results: In mice, topical CUR61414 significantly inhibited skin Hh signaling, blocked the induction of hair follicle anagen, and shrank existing BCCs. However, we observed no clinical activity of this formulation in human superficial or nodular BCCs in a phase I clinical study. Conclusions: Our data highlight some of the challenges of translating preclinical experience into successful human results for a topical anticancer agent. Clin Cancer Res; 17(10); 3378–87. ©2011 AACR.

The hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway plays an important role in embryogenesis across multiple species. Its activity is reduced or absent in adult organisms. However, activation of the pathway has been shown to be a factor in the development of a number of human malignancies and inhibition of the pathway is being investigated as a potential treatment for multiple cancers. The most extensively investigated and best characterized is basal cell carcinoma (BCC), which occurs in both an inherited form (basal cell nevus syndrome or Gorlin's syndrome) and a sporadic form. Sporadic BCCs are the most common human malignancy. There is recent data available on the use of a small molecule inhibitor of the pathway in BCC. Clin Cancer Res; 16(13); 3335–9. ©2010 AACR.

Background Efalizumab, a T-cell-targeted, recombinant, humanized, monoclonal IgG1 antibody, inhibits key T-cell-mediated steps in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Efalizumab is approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis in adults in more than 50 countries. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of long-term, continuous efalizumab therapy in patients with psoriasis. Methods This open-label, multicentre phase III study enrolled 339 patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. During the initial 3-month phase, patients received subcutaneous efalizumab 2 mg kg−1 weekly with randomization to receive concomitant fluocinolone acetonide or placebo ointment during month 3. The second phase was a long-term observational period; patients achieving a ≥ 50% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score were eligible to receive efalizumab 1 mg kg−1 weekly for up to 33 months. The final 3-month treatment period was an optional transition period for patients who completed the 33-month segment before efalizumab became commercially available. Results After 3 months, 41·3% of patients achieved a ≥ 75% improvement in PASI (PASI-75) and 13·0% achieved a ≥ 90% improvement (PASI-90). Continued improvement was observed: 45·4% and 24·5% achieved PASI-75 and PASI-90, respectively, at the end of the observational phase. The safety profile was stable, with no new or no increase in common events over 36 months of treatment. Conclusions This was the longest continuous study using a biologic therapy for psoriasis. Clinical benefit of efalizumab improved over the first 18 months and was maintained during 36 months of continuous therapy. Long-term efalizumab therapy is appropriate for many patients with plaque psoriasis. Conflicts of interest C.L. with 3M Pharmaceuticals, Abbott, Allergan, Altana, Amgen, Astellas-Biogen, Bristol Myers, Centocor, CombinatoRx, Fujisawa Healthcare, Galderma, Genentech, Merck Serono International SA, Schering Plough, RTL, Vitae and Warner Chilcott; A.M. with 3M Pharmaceuticals, Abbott, Allergan, Allermed, Amgen, Astralis, Berlex, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Centocor, Cephalon, Collagenex Pharmaceuticals, CombinatoRx, Connetics, Corixa, Dermik Laboratories, Doak Dermatologics, Dow, Ferndale Laboratories, Fujisawa Healthcare, Galderma, Genentech, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Medicis, MedImmune, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Protein Design Labs, QLT USA, Regeneration Pharma AG, Roche, Merck Serono International SA, Sinclair, Synta Pharma, Thermosurgery, Vertex, Warner Chilcott, Wyeth, XOMA and Zars; T.H. with Genentech; A.B.G. with Abbott, Actelion, Almirall, Amgen, Beiersdorf, Biogen Idec, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite, Celera, Celgene, Centocor, DermiPsor, Eisai, Genentech, Immune Control, Incyte, Kemia, Medacorp, Medarex, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacare, Roche, RxClinical, Sankyo, Schering Plough, TEVA, UCB, Warner Chilcott and Wyeth. All income derived from these sources goes to her employer. I.C. and B.X. are employees and stockholders of Genentech.

Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by infiltration of the dermis and epidermis by activated T cells and the hyperproliferation and abnormal differentiation of keratinocytes. It is a life-long disease with alternating periods of remission and recurrence. Efalizumab is a humanized, recombinant, T-cell targeting monoclonal antibody, approved for use in adults with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.To assess the safety of continued or newly initiated treatment with efalizumab for up to 48 weeks in patients with psoriasis who were treated previously with efalizumab or placebo.This study was an open-label, 48-week extension of a previously published 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase IIIb study, carried out in the US and Canada between 24 October 2002 and 2 July 2004. Patients were followed and treated at the study clinic in an outpatient setting and also were trained to self-administer the drug at home. Patients comprising individuals with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who had completed the 12-week, placebo-controlled segment of the study were eligible for enrolment in the extension phase. Of the 686 patients enrolled in the study, 636 (92.7%) enrolled in the open-label extension of the study, 418 of whom had received 12 weeks of efalizumab therapy and 218 of whom had received 12 weeks of placebo. All patients entering the open-label phase of the study received efalizumab 1 mg/kg/wk for an additional 48 weeks, for a maximum exposure of up to 60 weeks. Safety was evaluated by an assessment of adverse events, including infections and serious adverse events.The rate of withdrawal due to adverse events remained low throughout the trial, ranging from 1.2% to 6.6% during the 12-week segments of the open-label extension phase of the trial. The incidence of adverse events decreased with increased exposure to efalizumab; the incidence during the initial 12 weeks of exposure to efalizumab was 79.0% compared with 72.9% for patients exposed to placebo. Patients treated with efalizumab for 13-24 weeks, 25-36 weeks, 37-48 weeks and 49-60 weeks experienced adverse events at an incidence of 66.8%, 54.3%, 49.6% and 48.5%, respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events ranged from 1.6% to 3.5% during the 12-week segments of efalizumab therapy, compared with an incidence of 3.4% for placebo-treated patients. The incidence of infection ranged from 9.9% to 14.7% during the 12-week segments of efalizumab therapy, compared with an incidence of 19.1% for placebo-treated patients. Malignancies were reported with an incidence of/=1.0% for efalizumab-treated patients during any 12-week segment compared with 0.4% for the 12-week placebo-treated patients. Of the 15 malignancies reported for efalizumab-treated patients, 13 were basal cell (n = 4) or squamous cell (n = 9) carcinomas.These results support the short-term safety profile demonstrated for efalizumab over a longer-term therapy period of up to 60 weeks.

The chronic nature of psoriasis calls for long-term maintenance of control; thus, it is important to understand the long-term safety profile of effective therapies. We present long-term safety data for the T-cell inhibitor efalizumab in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. To further assess the safety profile of efalizumab over extended therapy periods, we evaluated pooled results from 1,004 patients enrolled in two studies where patients were to be treated for 60 weeks. The most frequently observed adverse events (AEs) were acute-type AEs, predefined as headache, fever, chills, nausea, vomiting and myalgia occurring within 48 hours of efalizumab dosing. The rate of infection was comparable to rates reported in other efalizumab trials. The most common infections were colds and upper respiratory tract infections. The incidence of malignancy was

Psoriasis is a common immune-mediated skin disease affecting millions of people in North America and Europe. Activated immune system, as well as the crosstalk via cytokine networks between the immune cells and epidermal keratinocytes, are involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. This brief review will discuss emerging therapeutic cytokine targets, ranging from advanced clinical development to early explorative research, for the treatment of psoriasis. Some of the new approaches may lead to promising new therapeutic options for psoriasis.

Background: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthritis associated with psoriasis. Efalizumab, a T cell-targeted, recombinant human monoclonal antibody, is approved for the treatment of adult patients with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. The effect of efalizumab therapy on PsA has not previously been investigated. Objective: This phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and safety of efalizumab for the treatment of PsA. Methods: Patients were required to be on at least one of the following concomitant systemic therapies for PsA: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, and/or sulfasalazine or methotrexate. One hundred fifteen patients with active PsA were enrolled and randomized in the study. Of these, 107 were treated weekly with efalizumab 1 mg/kg or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by 12 additional weeks of open-label efalizumab. Results: At week 12, 28% of efalizumab-treated patients achieved ACR-20 response (a 20% reduction from the baseline in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria), the primary end point, compared with 19% of placebo patients ( p = .27). The safety profile was comparable between efalizumab- and placebo-treated patient groups, regardless of methotrexate background therapy, and no worsening of joint disease occurred with efalizumab therapy. Conclusions: Efalizumab was not effective in treating PsA; efalizumab therapy did not worsen PsA. The efalizumab safety profile does not appear to be altered with the concomitant use of methotrexate therapy.

Background To provide safety data for efalizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody, in adults with chronic plaque psoriasis. Methods A 12-week, Phase IIIb, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. At 58 study sites in the USA and Canada, 686 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis received an initial conditioning dose of efalizumab 0.7 mg/kg subcutaneously (SC) followed by either 11 weekly doses of efalizumab 1 mg/kg SC or matching placebo. Main outcome measures were safety and tolerability outcomes (primary) and efficacy outcomes (secondary). Results During 12 weeks of therapy with efalizumab or placebo, the incidence of clinical adverse events was 82.2% and 72.9%, respectively; the incidence of serious adverse events was 1.8% and 3.4%, respectively; and the incidence of nonserious adverse events leading to withdrawal was 1.8% and 1.7%, respectively. In the efalizumab group, there were no clinically significant changes in vital signs or laboratory parameters and no evidence of end-organ toxicities. A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving efalizumab than those receiving placebo achieved ≥ 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) (P

Background: The efficacy and safety of efalizumab have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials. ObjectiveThe purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the safety profile of efalizumab during the clinical trials. Methods: Twelve-week data from four placebo-controlled trials were pooled and analyzed. Data from patients receiving 13—60 weeks of efalizumab therapy were pooled to evaluate longer-term safety. Results: The most common adverse events were mild to moderate, self-limiting, flulike symptoms that were most frequent following the first two efalizumab doses; by the third dose the incidence was comparable to placebo. Serious adverse events were observed in 2.2% and 1.7% of efalizumab- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Nonserious adverse events leading to withdrawal were infrequent and similar to placebo (2.8% vs 1.8%). There does not appear to be increased risk of end-organ toxicity, infection, or malignancy in efalizumab-treated patients. Conclusion: Efalizumab was well tolerated, with a favorable safety profile.

Efalizumab inhibits multiple T-cell-mediated processes.To evaluate 12- and 24-week efalizumab therapy for psoriasis.In this phase III, randomized, double-blind trial, 498 patients received subcutaneous 1 or 2 mg/kg/wk efalizumab or placebo for 12 weeks. Efalizumab-treated patients who achieved75% Psoriasis Area and Severity Index improvement (PASI-75) were re-randomized to a second 12-week course of treatment. Results At week 12, 39% and 27% of efalizumab-treated patients (1 and 2 mg/kg, respectively) achieved PASI-75 (vs 2% placebo; P.001, both dose groups). At week 24, an additional 20% of efalizumab-treated patients achieved PASI-75 (vs placebo 7%, P = .018). Efalizumab was well tolerated.Twelve-week efalizumab treatment resulted in significant improvement; extension of therapy to 24 weeks resulted in additional improvement in patients who initially had not achieved PASI-75. There were no significant changes in safety profile during weeks 13-24.

Presentation of Case A 16-year-old girl was admitted to the hospital because of pleuritic chest pain. Bilateral imbrication of the hip capsules had been performed 15 months earlier at this hospital because of recurrent bouts of hip dislocation. Evaluation at that time showed a positive test for antinuclear antibodies, at a titer of 1:2560 with a homogeneous pattern; tests for anti-Ro and anti-La antibodies were negative, and a test for anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies was also negative, at 1:10. The postoperative course was complicated by a burning, pruritic, erythematous rash that was believed to be erythema multiforme and was ascribed to . . .

Background Vismodegib is approved for treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma. Objective We sought to characterize vismodegib efficacy and safety in operable basal cell carcinoma. Methods Patients with new, operable, nodular basal cell carcinoma received vismodegib (150 mg/d) followed by excision and Mohs micrographic surgery to ensure clear margins. Cohort 1 received vismodegib for 12 weeks; cohort 2 received vismodegib for 12 weeks, then 24 weeks of observation before excision; and cohort 3 received vismodegib for 8 weeks on/4 weeks off/8 weeks on. Results In all, 24 patients enrolled in cohort 1, and 25 in cohorts 2 and 3. Complete histologic clearance was achieved by 42%, 16%, and 44% of patients in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Muscle spasms (76%), alopecia (58%), and dysgeusia (50%) were the most frequent adverse events (AEs). Five (7%) patients discontinued treatment because of an AE. AE reversibility was evaluated in cohort 2 with 24 weeks of observation after treatment discontinuation. Limitations Nonrandomized, small cohort sizes, and short observation durations for some patients are limitations. Conclusion Primary efficacy end points were not met (predefined complete histologic clearance rate: >50% in cohorts 1 and 3; >30% in cohort 2). Safety was comparable when dosed continuously versus intermittently. Posttreatment reversibility of vismodegib-related AEs was demonstrated.

BackgroundIn the BRIM-3 trial, vemurafenib was associated with risk reduction versus dacarbazine of both death and progression in patients with advanced BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma. We present an extended follow-up analysis of the total population and in the BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) mutation subgroups.MethodsPatients older than 18 years, with treatment-naive metastatic melanoma and whose tumour tissue was positive for BRAF(V600) mutations were eligible. Patients also had to have a life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate haematological, hepatic, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned by interactive voice recognition system to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) of body surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (n=675), with data censored at crossover. A sensitivity analysis was done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01006980.Findings675 eligible patients were enrolled from 104 centres in 12 countries between Jan 4, 2010, and Dec 16, 2010. 337 patients were randomly assigned to receive vemurafenib and 338 to receive dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·7-16·0) on vemurafenib and 9·5 months (3·1-14·7) on dacarbazine. 83 (25%) of the 338 patients initially randomly assigned to dacarbazine crossed over from dacarbazine to vemurafenib. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the vemurafenib group than in the dacarbazine group (13·6 months [95% CI 12·0-15·2] vs 9·7 months [7·9-12·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·57-0·87]; p=0·0008), as was median progression-free survival (6·9 months [95% CI 6·1-7·0] vs 1·6 months [1·6-2·1]; HR 0·38 [95% CI 0·32-0·46]; p

Purpose.Vismodegib was approved for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma (aBCC) based on the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study. The primary endpoint (objective responserate[ORR])wasassessed9monthsafterthelastpatient was enrolled.To confirm the clinical benefit of vismodegib, an additionalanalysiswasperformed12monthsaftertheprimary analysis. Materials and Methods.ERIVANCE BCC was a multicenter, nonrandomized, two-cohort study of 104 patients with histologically confirmed aBCC. Patients received 150 mg oral vismodegib daily until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal. An independent review panel comprising three expert clinicians reviewed patient photographs individually and as a consensus panel to evaluate baseline disease severity and clinical benefit after vismodegib treatment in 71 patients with locally advanced BCC (laBCC). Results. Sixty-threepatients wereefficacyevaluable;baseline and postprogression photographs for 61 were available for review. Baseline disease severity was judged as 5 or 4 (very severe or moderately severe) in 71.4%. Clinical benefit was observed in 76.2% (significant: 65.1%; some: 11.1%). Interpanelist agreement (maximum difference #1 point among panelists’ scores in 65.1% and 87.3% of patients for clinical benefit and baseline disease severity, respectively) and correlationbetweenindividualandpanelreviewswerestrong. Clinical benefit scores showed good concordance with the protocol-specified ORR obtained by an independent review facility and with investigator-assessed response. Conclusion. Clinical benefit assessed by independent review based on expert clinical judgment provides strong evidence thattreatmentwithvismodegibresultsinclinicallymeaningful and durable responses in patients with laBCC.The Oncologist 2014;19:1–7 Implications for Practice: Based on the results of the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC trial, vismodegib was approved for use in patients with basal cell carcinoma not amenable to surgery or radiation. The current article demonstrates that expert independent clinical judgment of pretreatment and post-treatment lesion photographs from patients enrolled in ERIVANCE BCC was consistent with the investigator-assessed results previously reported. Strong consistency was also observed between independent reviewers’ assessments of both baseline disease severity and overall clinical benefit. This independent panel review lends support to the clinically meaningful responses to vismodegib observed in ERIVANCE BCC.

Tumor responses in advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC) have been observed in clinical trials with vismodegib, a SMO antagonist. The result of SMO antagonism is inhibition Hedgehog Signaling Pathway (HHSP) downstream target genes. HHSP inhibition has been shown to affect stem cells responsible for blood, mammary, and neural development. We report on our experience of treating two patients with advanced BCC participating. These two patients have had no new BCCs develop for at least 2.25 years. Both patients have been receiving ongoing daily treatment with vismodegib for greater than 2.75 years without experiencing any significant side effects. After prolonged continuous daily dosing with a SMO antagonist, we have not observed a significant alteration in hematologic parameters or physical abnormalities of the pectoral regions of two patients with advanced BCC.

Background Alopecia areata (AA) is a T-cell–mediated autoimmune disease. Efalizumab is a T-cell–targeted therapy approved for the treatment of psoriasis. Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of efalizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AA. Methods Sixty-two patients were enrolled into this phase II, placebo-controlled trial. The trial consisted of three 12-week periods—a double-blind treatment period, an open-label efalizumab treatment period, and a safety follow-up. Results There were no statistical differences between treatment groups in percent hair regrowth, quality-of-life measures, or changes in biologic markers of disease severity after 12 or 24 weeks. In both groups, there was an approximately 8% response rate for hair regrowth (at 12 weeks). Efalizumab was well tolerated. Limitations Numbers were too small for certain analyses. Conclusion A 3- to 6-month trial of efalizumab was not effective in promoting hair regrowth in this small cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe AA.

Background Efalizumab is a T cell–targeted therapy for psoriasis. Objective We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of long-term, continuous efalizumab therapy. Methods Of 339 patients enrolled in this ongoing, open-label, phase III study, after 3 months 290 qualified for and entered the maintenance treatment phase. Results Results for the first 27 months of this 36-month continuous therapy trial are available. At month 3, 41% of patients achieved at least a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score; at month 27, 47% achieved at least a 75% reduction in PASI score (intent to treat, n=339). Among patients eligible for maintenance therapy (n = 290), 56% achieved at least a 75% reduction in PASI score at month 27. Moreover, the at least 90% reduction in PASI score rate increased through 18 months (33%). The safety profile with efalizumab was sustained throughout 27 months of continuous treatment with no new common events over time. Limitations Because the extended treatment period was not a randomized clinical trial, no formal comparative analyses versus placebo were conducted. Three-month placebo data from randomized, parallel, placebo-controlled studies are briefly discussed. Conclusions These results suggest that efalizumab maintains, and in some patients continues to improve, efficacy during long-term therapy.