Search

KEYNOTE-030 (ClinicalTrials.gov ID, NCT02083484) was a global expanded access program that allowed access to pembrolizumab, an antiprogrammed death 1 antibody, for patients with advanced melanoma before its regulatory approval. Patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma that progressed after standard-of-care therapy, including ipilimumab and, if BRAF mutant, a BRAF inhibitor, were eligible to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Response was assessed by immune-related response criteria by investigator review. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. In the United States, 979 patients enrolled between April and September 2014. Of the 947 evaluable patients, 621 (65.6%) remained on treatment and transitioned to receive commercial pembrolizumab following approval by the Food and Drug Administration, whereas 326 (34.4%) discontinued, most commonly for disease progression (39.6%) or death (26.4%). Objective response rate was 14.5% (95% confidence interval, 12.2%-16.8%) in the treated population (n=947) and 22.1% (95% confidence interval, 18.8%-25.5%) in patients who had ≥1 response assessment reported (n=619). Twelve patients achieved complete response. One hundred eighty-one (19.1%) patients experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE, most commonly general disorders (8.0%), skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders (7.3%), and gastrointestinal disorders (6.4%); 29 (3.1%) patients experienced ≥1 grade 3/4 treatment-related AE. Immune-mediated AEs were also reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. The safety and efficacy observed in this expanded access program were consistent with those previously reported for similar populations and support the use of pembrolizumab for patients with advanced melanoma.

BackgroundPatients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma.MethodsWe carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both. Patients had to have resolution of all ipilimumab-related adverse events to grade 0-1 and prednisone 10 mg/day or less for at least 2 weeks, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion to be eligible. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (1:1:1) patients in a block size of six to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide). Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and BRAF(V600) mutation status. Individual treatment assignment between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was open label, but investigators and patients were masked to assignment of the dose of pembrolizumab. We present the primary endpoint at the prespecified second interim analysis of progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. The study is closed to enrolment but continues to follow up and treat patients.FindingsBetween Nov 30, 2012, and Nov 13, 2013, we enrolled 540 patients: 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 179 to receive chemotherapy. Based on 410 progression-free survival events, progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·45-0·73; p

PurposeAlthough durable responses can be achieved with tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib in melanomas harboring KIT mutations, the efficacy of alternative inhibitors after progression to imatinib and the activity of these agents on brain metastases are unknown.Experimental designWe conducted a phase II study of nilotinib 400 mg twice a day in two cohorts of patients with melanomas harboring KIT mutations or amplification: (A) those refractory or intolerant to a prior KIT inhibitor; and (B) those with brain metastases. The primary endpoint was 4-month disease control rate. Secondary endpoints included response rate, time-to-progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). A Simon two-stage and a single-stage design was planned to assess for the primary endpoint in cohorts A and B, respectively.ResultsTwenty patients were enrolled and 19 treated (11 in cohort A; 8 in cohort B). Three patients on cohort A [27%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 8%-56%] and 1 on cohort B (12.5%; 90% CI, 0.6%-47%) achieved the primary endpoint. Two partial responses were observed in cohort A (18.2%; 90% CI, 3%-47%); none were observed in cohort B. The median TTP and OS was 3.3 (90% CI, 2.1-3.9 months) and 9.1 months (90% CI, 4.3-14.2 months), respectively, in all treated patients.ConclusionsNilotinib may achieve disease control in patients with melanoma harboring KIT alterations and whose disease progressed after imatinib therapy. The efficacy of this agent in KIT-altered melanoma with brain metastasis is limited.

Many cancer patients may choose aggressive treatment because they erroneously believe they have a good chance of surviving longer if they do. Researchers analyzed patient and physician beliefs about prognosis and the treatment choices of 917 cancer patients. Patients who thought they had a 90% chance of living 6 months even though their physician believed they had only a 10% chance were much more likely to choose aggressive treatment rather than palliative care. Most of these patients overestimated their prognosis because their 6-month survival rates were no better than those who chose palliative treatment., Context.--Previous studies have documented that cancer patients tend to overestimate the probability of long-term survival. If patient preferences about the trade-offs between the risks and benefits associated with alternative treatment strategies are based on inaccurate perceptions of prognosis, then treatment choices may not reflect each patient's true values. Objective.--To test the hypothesis that among terminally ill cancer patients an accurate understanding of prognosis is associated with a preference for therapy that focuses on comfort over attempts at life extension. Design.--Prospective cohort study. Setting.--Five teaching hospitals in the United States. Patients.--A total of 917 adults hospitalized with stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer or colon cancer metastatic to liver in phases 1 and 2 of the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). Main Outcome Measures.--Proportion of patients favoring life-extending therapy over therapy focusing on relief of pain and discomfort, patient and physician estimates of the probability of 6 month survival, and actual 6 month survival. Results.--Patients who thought they were going to live for at least 6 months were more likely (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-3.7) to favor life-extending therapy over comfort care compared with patients who thought there was at least a 10% chance that they would not live 6 months. This OR was highest (8.5; 95% CI, 3.0-24.0) among patients who estimated their 6 month survival probability at greater than 90% but whose physicians estimated it at 10% or less. Patients overestimated their chances of surviving 6 months, while physicians estimated prognosis quite accurately. Patients who preferred life-extending therapy were more likely to undergo aggressive treatment, but controlling for known prognostic factors, their 6 month survival was no better. Conclusions.--Patients with metastatic colon and lung cancer overestimate their survival probabilities and these estimates may influence their preferences about medical therapies. JAMA. 1998;279:1709-1714

A window into lung injury in COVID-19: In new work, D'Agnillo et al. perform a systems biology analysis of lung autopsy samples from 18 patients with fatal COVID-19. They report that damage to the cells lining lung branches and blood vessel injury together with defective lung tissue repair after SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in a fatal outcome. These findings further define the molecular features underlying the lung's response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and indicate stages of disease progression that may help to guide development of therapies to treat patients with severe COVID-19. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is characterized by respiratory distress, multiorgan dysfunction, and, in some cases, death. The pathological mechanisms underlying COVID-19 respiratory distress and the interplay with aggravating risk factors have not been fully defined. Lung autopsy samples from 18 patients with fatal COVID-19, with symptom onset-to-death times ranging from 3 to 47 days, and antemortem plasma samples from 6 of these cases were evaluated using deep sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, multiplex plasma protein measurements, and pulmonary gene expression and imaging analyses. Prominent histopathological features in this case series included progressive diffuse alveolar damage with excessive thrombosis and late-onset pulmonary tissue and vascular remodeling. Acute damage at the alveolar-capillary barrier was characterized by the loss of surfactant protein expression with injury to alveolar epithelial cells, endothelial cells, respiratory epithelial basal cells, and defective tissue repair processes. Other key findings included impaired clot fibrinolysis with increased concentrations of plasma and lung plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and modulation of cellular senescence markers, including p21 and sirtuin-1, in both lung epithelial and endothelial cells. Together, these findings further define the molecular pathological features underlying the pulmonary response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and provide important insights into signaling pathways that may be amenable to therapeutic intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Metastatic melanoma is an incurable disease with an average survival of less than one year. Talabostat is a novel dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitor with immunostimulatory properties. Methods This phase II, open label, single arm study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 75–100 mg/m2 cisplatin combined with 300–400 mcg talabostat bid for 6, 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response. The rate of complete responses, duration of overall objective response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival were the secondary endpoints. Results Six objective partial responses were recorded in the 74 patients (8.1%) in the intention-to-treat population. Five of these responses involved the 40 evaluable patients (12.5%). Thirty-one percent of patients reported SAEs to the combination of talabostat and cisplatin. Conclusion Acceptable tolerability was observed in the intention-to-treat population and antitumor activity was observed in 12.5% of evaluable patients, which is not greater than historical expectation with cisplatin alone.