Caroline Dutriaux

Nivolumab in Previously Untreated Melanoma without BRAF Mutation

BACKGROUND Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

Combined Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib in BRAF-Mutated Melanoma

BACKGROUND The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. METHODS We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).

Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND The combination of cobimetinib with vemurafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo and vemurafenib in previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma, as previously reported in the coBRIM study. In this Article, we report updated efficacy results, including overall survival and safety after longer follow-up, and selected biomarker correlative studies. METHODS In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed BRAF(V600) mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive response system to receive cobimetinib (60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day rest period in each 28-day cycle) or placebo, in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). Progression-free and overall survival were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; all analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01689519, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants. FINDINGS Between Jan 8, 2013, and Jan 31, 2014, 495 eligible adult patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib group (n=247) or placebo plus vemurafenib group (n=248). At a median follow-up of 14·2 months (IQR 8·5-17·3), the updated investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 7·2 months (5·6-7·5) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46-0·72], p<0·0001). The final analysis for overall survival occurred when 255 (52%) patients had died (Aug 28, 2015). Median overall survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·3-not estimable) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 17·4 months (95% CI 15·0-19·8) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·90; p=0·005). The safety profile for cobimetinib and vemurafenib was tolerable and manageable, and no new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events occurring at a higher frequency in patients in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group compared with the vemurafenib group were γ-glutamyl transferase increase (36 [15%] in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group vs 25 [10%] in the placebo and vemurafenib group), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (30 [12%] vs one [<1%]), and alanine transaminase increase (28 [11%] vs 15 [6%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 92 patients (37%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 69 patients (28%) in the vemurafenib group. Pyrexia (six patients [2%]) and dehydration (five patients [2%]) were the most common serious adverse events reported in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group. A total of 259 patients have died: 117 (47%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 142 (58%) in the vemurafenib group. The primary cause of death was disease progression in most patients: 109 (93%) of 117 in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 133 (94%) of 142 in the vemurafenib group. INTERPRETATION These data confirm the clinical benefit of cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib and support the use of the combination as a standard first-line approach to improve survival in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage III BRAF-Mutated Melanoma

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

Vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma (STEVIE): a pre-planned interim analysis of an international, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND The Hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib has shown clinical benefit in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma and is approved for treatment of patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma for whom surgery is inappropriate. STEVIE was designed to assess the safety of vismodegib in a situation similar to routine practice, with a long follow-up. METHODS In this multicentre, open-label trial, adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced basal cell carcinoma or metastatic basal cell carcinoma were recruited from regional referral centres or specialist clinics. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and adequate organ function. Patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma had to have been deemed ineligible for surgery. All patients received 150 mg oral vismodegib capsules once a day on a continuous basis in 28-day cycles. The primary objective was safety (incidence of adverse events until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects), with assessments on day 1 of each treatment cycle (28 days) by principal investigator and coinvestigators at the site. Efficacy variables were assessed as secondary endpoints. The safety evaluable population included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Patients with histologically confirmed basal cell carcinoma who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the efficacy analysis. An interim analysis was pre-planned after 500 patients achieved 1 year of follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01367665. The study is still ongoing. FINDINGS Between June 30, 2011, and Nov 6, 2014, we enrolled 1227 patients. At clinical cutoff (Nov 6, 2013), 499 patients (468 with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and 31 with metastatic basal cell carcinoma) had received study drug and had the potential to be followed up for 12 months or longer. Treatment was discontinued in 400 (80%) patients; 180 (36%) had adverse events, 70 (14%) had progressive disease, and 51 (10%) requested to stop treatment. Median duration of vismodegib exposure was 36·4 weeks (IQR 17·7-62·0). Adverse events happened in 491 (98%) patients; the most common were muscle spasms (317 [64%]), alopecia (307 [62%]), dysgeusia (269 [54%]), weight loss (162 [33%]), asthenia (141 [28%]), decreased appetite (126 [25%]), ageusia (112 [22%]), diarrhoea (83 [17%]), nausea (80 [16%]), and fatigue (80 [16%]). Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. We recorded serious adverse events in 108 (22%) of 499 patients. Of the 31 patients who died, 21 were the result of adverse events. As assessed by investigators, 302 (66·7%, 62·1-71·0) of 453 patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma had an overall response (153 complete responses and 149 partial responses); 11 (37·9%; 20·7-57·7) of 29 patients with metastatic basal cell carcinoma had an overall response (two complete responses, nine partial responses). INTERPRETATION This study assessed the use of vismodegib in a setting representative of routine clinical practice for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. Our results show that treatment with vismodegib adds a novel therapeutic modality from which patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma can benefit substantially. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND There are no established therapies specific for NRAS-mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma. METHODS NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS-mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance status, and previous immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one study drug dose and one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01763164 and with EudraCT, number 2012-003593-51. FINDINGS Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4-4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8-3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5-1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 [19%] of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 [7%] vs two [2%]), anaemia (five [2%] vs six [5%]), and neutropenia (two [1%] vs ten [9%]). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. INTERPRETATION Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. FUNDING Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Nivolumab improved survival vs dacarbazine in patients with untreated advanced melanoma

The hazard ratio (HR) for death was 0.42 (99.79% CI 0.25–0.73; P < 0.0001) in favor of nivolumab, with 1year OS rate 73% (95% CI, 66%–79%) for nivolumab vs 42% (95% CI, 33%–51%) for dacarbazine. Median OS was not reached for nivolumab and was 10.8 months for dacarbazine. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.1 months for nivolumab and 2.2 months for dacarbazine (HR for death or progression 0.43, 95% CI 0.34–0.56; P < 0.0001). Objective response rate was 40% (84/210) vs 14% (29/208) for nivolumab and dacarbazine, respectively (P < 0.0001). Median duration of response was not reached for nivolumab and 6 months for dacarbazine. At the time of data cutoff, responses were ongoing in 86% (72/84) of nivolumab and 52% (15/29) of dacarbazine responders. PD-L1 positivity (using a 5% tumor cell surface staining cutoff) appeared to be associated with improved OS in the nivolumab arm (85% of PD-L1+ and 71% of PD-L1-/ indeterminate patients alive at the time of last followup). Both PD-L1+ and PD-L1-/indeterminate patients receiving nivolumab had improved OS vs dacarbazine (un-stratified HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.15–0.60 in PD-L1+ patients; 0.48, 95% CI, 0.32–0.71 in PD-L1-/indeterminate patient, both in favor of the nivolumab arm). The most common nivolumab-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related grade 3–4 AEs were reported in 12% vs 18% of patients receiving nivolumab vs dacarbazine, respectively. AEs led to discontinuation in 7% and 12% of dacarbazinevs nivolumab-treatment patients, respectively. Conclusions Compared to dacarbazine, nivolumab significantly improved OS and PFS in previously untreated patients with BRAF wild-type metastatic melanoma with an acceptable safety profile.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. METHODS COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. FINDINGS Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8-16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0-18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6-8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41-0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator. INTERPRETATION Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. FUNDING Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Vitiligo-like lesions occurring in patients receiving anti-programmed cell death–1 therapies are clinically and biologically distinct from vitiligo

Background: The use of anti‐programmed cell death (PD)‐1 therapies in metastatic tumors is associated with cutaneous side effects including vitiligo‐like lesions. Objective: We sought to characterize clinically and biologically vitiligo‐like lesions occurring in patients receiving anti‐PD‐1 therapies by studying a case series of 8 patients with metastatic tumors and 30 control subjects with vitiligo. Methods: Eight patients receiving anti‐PD‐1 therapies with features of vitiligo‐like lesions seen in our department were recruited. Clinical features and photographs were analyzed. For some patients, skin and blood samples were obtained. Results were compared with the vitiligo group. Results: All patients developed lesions localized on photoexposed areas with a specific depigmentation pattern consisting of multiple flecked lesions without Koebner phenomenon. In contrast to vitiligo, patients receiving anti‐PD‐1 therapies who developed vitiligo‐like lesions did not report any personal or family histories of vitiligo, thyroiditis, or other autoimmune disorders. Analysis of blood and skin samples revealed increased C‐X‐C motif ligand 10 levels in serum of patients developing vitiligo‐like lesions, associated with skin infiltration of CD8 T‐cells expressing C‐X‐C motif receptor 3 and producing elevated levels of interferon‐&ggr; and tumor necrosis factor‐alfa. Limitations: This cross‐sectional study concerned a single center. Conclusions: Clinical and biological patterns of vitiligo‐like lesions occurring in patients receiving anti‐PD‐1 therapies differ from vitiligo, suggesting a different mechanism.

Rheumatic disorders associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer—clinical aspects and relationship with tumour response: a single-centre prospective cohort study

Objectives To evaluate the prevalence and type of rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as well as the correlation with tumour response. Methods This was a single-centre prospective observational study including all cancer patients receiving ICIs. The occurrence of irAEs and tumour response was assessed on a regular basis. Patients who experienced musculoskeletal symptoms were referred to the department of rheumatology for clinical evaluation and management. Results From September 2015 to May 2017, 524 patients received ICIs and 35 were referred to the department of rheumatology (6.6%). All but one of the rheumatic irAEs occurred with anti-programmed cell death protein 1(PD-1)/PD-1 ligand 1(PD-L1) antibodies, with a median exposure time of 70 days. There were two distinct clinical presentations: (1) inflammatory arthritis (3.8%) mimicking either rheumatoid arthritis (n=7), polymyalgia rheumatica (n=11) or psoriatic arthritis (n=2) and (2) non-inflammatory musculoskeletal conditions (2.8%; n=15). One patient with rheumatoid arthritis was anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positive. Nineteen patients required glucocorticoids, and methotrexate was started in two patients. Non-inflammatory disorders were managed with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics and/or physiotherapy. ICI treatment was pursued in all but one patient. Patients with rheumatic irAEs had a higher tumour response rate compared with patients without irAEs (85.7% vs 35.3%; P<0.0001). Conclusion Since ICIs are used with increasing frequency, knowledge of rheumatic irAEs and their management is of major interest. All patients were responsive either to low-to-moderate doses of prednisone or symptomatic therapies and did not require ICI discontinuation. Furthermore, tumour response was significantly higher in patients who experienced rheumatic irAEs.