Christopher D. Lao

Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigators choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAF(V 600) mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01721746. FINDINGS Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5-40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5-23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3-4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three [1%] of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two [1%] each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 [14%] of 102), thrombocytopenia (six [6%]), and anaemia (five [5%]). We noted grade 3-4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. FUNDING Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Dose escalation of a curcuminoid formulation

BackgroundCurcumin is the major yellow pigment extracted from turmeric, a commonly-used spice in India and Southeast Asia that has broad anticarcinogenic and cancer chemopreventive potential. However, few systematic studies of curcumins pharmacology and toxicology in humans have been performed.MethodsA dose escalation study was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety of a single dose of standardized powder extract, uniformly milled curcumin (C3Complex™, Sabinsa Corporation). Healthy volunteers were administered escalating doses from 500 to 12,000 mg.ResultsSeven of twenty-four subjects (30%) experienced only minimal toxicity that did not appear to be dose-related. No curcumin was detected in the serum of subjects administered 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 6,000 or 8,000 mg. Low levels of curcumin were detected in two subjects administered 10,000 or 12,000 mg.ConclusionThe tolerance of curcumin in high single oral doses appears to be excellent. Given that achieving systemic bioavailability of curcumin or its metabolites may not be essential for colorectal cancer chemoprevention, these findings warrant further investigation for its utility as a long-term chemopreventive agent.

Personalized Oncology Through Integrative High-Throughput Sequencing: A Pilot Study

The mutations present in advanced cancers can be identified by integrative high-throughput sequencing to enable biomarker-driven clinical trials and, ultimately, treatment. First Steps to Personalized Cancer Treatment In an optimistic vision of personalized medicine, each cancer patient is treated with drugs tailored for their particular tumor. This sounds appealing, but is it even possible? Roychowdhury and his colleagues tested this approach by extensively characterizing cancers in several patients and then convening a Sequencing Tumor Board of experts to determine the appropriate treatment. With a combination of whole genome and exome sequencing plus sequencing of transcribed RNA, the authors were able to find informative mutations within 3 to 4 weeks, a short enough time to be useful clinically. To verify that their sequencing strategy would work before testing it on actual patients, they assessed two xenografts established from patients with metastatic prostate cancer. They found that one of these carried the common prostate cancer–specific gene fusion of TMPRSS2 and ERG and another, previously undescribed, gene fusion. Also, the androgen receptor gene was amplified and two tumor suppressors were inactivated. The Board concluded that this pattern of mutations could in theory be treated by combined block of the PI3K and androgen receptor signaling pathways. The authors then turned to an actual patient, a 46 year old with colorectal cancer, who had been unsuccessfully treated. Characterization of his metastatic tumor showed mutations in the oncogene NRAS, the tumor suppressor TP53, aurora kinase A, a myosin heavy chain and the FAS death receptor, plus amplification of CDK8. Of these, the Sequencing Tumor Board concluded that the NRAS and CDK8 aberrations could potentially be matched to clinical trials, although none were available at the time. Similar analysis of another patient with metastatic melanoma revealed a structural rearrangement in CDKN2C and HRas. Although the HRAS mutation has not been described before in melanoma, the Sequencing Tumor Board suggested that combined treatment with PI3K and MEK inhibitors would be suitable for this patient. The good news resulting from these studies was that the patients’ tumors were analyzed with in 24 days for ~

Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

3600, well within the cost of routine clinical tests. But aspects need improvement: Additional testing for epigenetic and small RNA variants will allow more informative characterization. Sequencing at higher depth or enrichment methods will be needed for tumors of lower purity. And perhaps most important, we need a broader array of clinical trials, as highlighted by the fact that none was available for these two patients. Individual cancers harbor a set of genetic aberrations that can be informative for identifying rational therapies currently available or in clinical trials. We implemented a pilot study to explore the practical challenges of applying high-throughput sequencing in clinical oncology. We enrolled patients with advanced or refractory cancer who were eligible for clinical trials. For each patient, we performed whole-genome sequencing of the tumor, targeted whole-exome sequencing of tumor and normal DNA, and transcriptome sequencing (RNA-Seq) of the tumor to identify potentially informative mutations in a clinically relevant time frame of 3 to 4 weeks. With this approach, we detected several classes of cancer mutations including structural rearrangements, copy number alterations, point mutations, and gene expression alterations. A multidisciplinary Sequencing Tumor Board (STB) deliberated on the clinical interpretation of the sequencing results obtained. We tested our sequencing strategy on human prostate cancer xenografts. Next, we enrolled two patients into the clinical protocol and were able to review the results at our STB within 24 days of biopsy. The first patient had metastatic colorectal cancer in which we identified somatic point mutations in NRAS, TP53, AURKA, FAS, and MYH11, plus amplification and overexpression of cyclin-dependent kinase 8 (CDK8). The second patient had malignant melanoma, in which we identified a somatic point mutation in HRAS and a structural rearrangement affecting CDKN2C. The STB identified the CDK8 amplification and Ras mutation as providing a rationale for clinical trials with CDK inhibitors or MEK (mitogen-activated or extracellular signal–regulated protein kinase kinase) and PI3K (phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase) inhibitors, respectively. Integrative high-throughput sequencing of patients with advanced cancer generates a comprehensive, individual mutational landscape to facilitate biomarker-driven clinical trials in oncology.

Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Critical Review With Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Management

BACKGROUND Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression‐free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3‐year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression‐free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab‐plus‐ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS At a minimum follow‐up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab‐plus‐ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab‐plus‐ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment‐related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab‐plus‐ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol‐Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.)

Effect of Selumetinib vs Chemotherapy on Progression-Free Survival in Uveal Melanoma A Randomized Clinical Trial

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a relatively rare cutaneous malignancy that occurs predominantly in the older white population. The incidence of MCC appears to have tripled during the past 20 years; an increase that is likely to continue because of the growing number of older Americans. The pathogenesis of MCC remains largely unknown. However, ultraviolet radiation and immunosuppression are likely to play a significant pathogenetic role. Many questions currently remain unanswered regarding the biologic behavior and optimal treatment of MCC. Large, prospective, randomized studies are not available and are unlikely to be performed because of the rarity of the disease. The objective of this review was to provide a comprehensive reference for MCC based on a critical evaluation of the current data. The authors investigated the importance of sentinel lymph node biopsy as a staging tool for MCC to assess the status of the regional lymph node basin and to determine the need for additional therapy to the lymph node basin. In an attempt to standardize prospective data collection with the intention to define prognostic indicators, the authors also present histopathologic profiles for primary MCC and sentinel lymph nodes. The controversies regarding the appropriate surgical approach to primary MCC, the use of adjuvant radiation therapy, and the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy were examined critically. Finally, the authors have provided treatment guidelines based on the available evidence and their multidisciplinary experience. Cancer 2007.

Ipilimumab and radiation therapy for melanoma brain metastases

IMPORTANCE Uveal melanoma is characterized by mutations in GNAQ and GNA11, resulting in mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway activation. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of selumetinib, a selective, non-adenosine triphosphate competitive inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2, in uveal melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial comparing selumetinib vs chemotherapy conducted from August 2010 through December 2013 among 120 patients with metastatic uveal melanoma at 15 academic oncology centers in the United States and Canada. INTERVENTIONS One hundred one patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive selumetinib, 75 mg orally twice daily on a continual basis (n = 50), or chemotherapy (temozolomide, 150 mg/m2 orally daily for 5 of every 28 days, or dacarbazine, 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 21 days [investigator choice]; n = 51) until disease progression, death, intolerable adverse effects, or withdrawal of consent. After primary outcome analysis, 19 patients were registered and 18 treated with selumetinib without randomization to complete the planned 120-patient enrollment. Patients in the chemotherapy group could receive selumetinib at the time of radiographic progression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Progression-free survival, the primary end point, was assessed as of April 22, 2013. Additional end points, including overall survival, response rate, and safety/toxicity, were assessed as of December 31, 2013. RESULTS Median progression-free survival among patients randomized to chemotherapy was 7 weeks (95% CI, 4.3-8.4 weeks; median treatment duration, 8 weeks; interquartile range [IQR], 4.3-16 weeks) and among those randomized to selumetinib was 15.9 weeks (95% CI, 8.4-21.1 weeks; median treatment duration, 16.1 weeks; IQR, 8.1-25.3 weeks) (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.71; P < .001). Median overall survival time was 9.1 months (95% CI, 6.1-11.1 months) with chemotherapy and 11.8 months (95% CI, 9.8-15.7 months) with selumetinib (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.41-1.06; P = .09). No objective responses were observed with chemotherapy. Forty-nine percent of patients treated with selumetinib achieved tumor regression, with 14% achieving an objective radiographic response to therapy. Treatment-related adverse events were observed in 97% of patients treated with selumetinib, with 37% requiring at least 1 dose reduction. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this hypothesis-generating study of patients with advanced uveal melanoma, selumetinib compared with chemotherapy resulted in a modestly improved progression-free survival and response rate; however, no improvement in overall survival was observed. Improvement in clinical outcomes was accompanied by a high rate of adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01143402.

Features Predicting Sentinel Lymph Node Positivity in Merkel Cell Carcinoma

Ipilimumab, an antibody that enhances T‐cell activation, may augment immunogenicity of tumor cells that are injured by radiation therapy. We hypothesized that patients with melanoma brain metastasis treated with both ipilimumab and radiotherapy would have improved overall survival, and that the sequence of treatments may affect disease control in the brain. We analyzed the clinical and radiographic records of melanoma patients with brain metastases who were treated with whole brain radiation therapy or stereotactic radiosurgery between 2005 and 2012. The hazard ratios for survival were estimated to assess outcomes as a function of ipilimumab use and radiation type. Seventy patients were identified, 33 of whom received ipilimumab and 37 who did not. The patients who received ipilimumab had a censored median survival of 18.3 months (95% confidence interval 8.1–25.5), compared with 5.3 months (95% confidence interval 4.0–7.6) for patients who did not receive ipilimumab. Ipilimumab and stereotactic radiosurgery were each significant predictors of improved overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.43 and 0.45, with P = 0.005 and 0.008, respectively). Four of 10 evaluable patients (40.0%) who received ipilimumab prior to radiotherapy demonstrated a partial response to radiotherapy, compared with two of 22 evaluable patients (9.1%) who did not receive ipilimumab. Ipilimumab is associated with a significantly reduced risk of death in patients with melanoma brain metastases who underwent radiotherapy, and this finding supports the need for multimodality therapy to optimize patient outcomes. Prospective studies are needed and are underway.

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab in Patients With BRAF V600 Mutant and BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis of 4 Clinical Trials

PURPOSE Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a relatively rare, potentially aggressive cutaneous malignancy. We examined the clinical and histologic features of primary MCC that may correlate with the probability of a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN). METHODS Ninety-five patients with MCC who underwent SLN biopsy at the University of Michigan were identified. SLN biopsy was performed on 97 primary tumors, and an SLN was identified in 93 instances. These were reviewed for clinical and histologic features and associated SLN positivity. Univariate associations between these characteristics and a positive SLN were tested for by using either the χ(2) or the Fishers exact test. A backward elimination algorithm was used to help create a best multiple variable model to explain a positive SLN. RESULTS SLN positivity was significantly associated with the clinical size of the lesion, greatest horizontal histologic dimension, tumor thickness, mitotic rate, and histologic growth pattern. Two competing multivariate models were generated to predict a positive SLN. The histologic growth pattern was present in both models and combined with either tumor thickness or mitotic rate. CONCLUSION Increasing clinical size, increasing tumor thickness, increasing mitotic rate, and infiltrative tumor growth pattern were significantly associated with a greater likelihood of a positive SLN. By using the growth pattern and tumor thickness model, no subgroup of patients was predicted to have a lower than 15% to 20% likelihood of a positive SLN. This suggests that all patients presenting with MCC without clinical evidence of regional lymph node disease should be considered for SLN biopsy.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Sorafenib with Temsirolimus or Tipifarnib in Untreated Metastatic Melanoma (S0438)

IMPORTANCE The anti-PD-1 therapeutic antibody, nivolumab, has demonstrated clinical activity in patients with advanced melanoma. The activity of nivolumab in subgroups of patients with tumors which have wild-type BRAF kinase vs patients with tumors having mutant BRAF has not systematically been explored in a large dataset. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with wild-type BRAF and mutant BRAF metastatic melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a retrospective analysis of data pooled from 4 clinical trials of nivolumab in 440 adult patients with unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma, who had been tested for BRAF mutational status while participating in one of the studies. INTERVENTION The investigational drug, nivolumab, was administered intravenously to study participants over a 60-minute period, at doses of 0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0, or 10.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression, discontinuation owing to adverse events, withdrawal, or end of study. Most patients (83%) received nivolumab at a dosage of 3 mg/kg. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE Best overall response by modified World Health Organization or Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors criteria and safety profile. RESULTS Of a total of 440 patients from 4 nivolumab clinical trials included in the analysis, 334 were BRAF wild-type and 106 were positive for BRAF V600 mutation. With the exception of prior BRAF inhibitor therapy, the demographics were well balanced between the 2 cohorts. In patients evaluable for response, the objective response rates were 34.6% (95% CI, 28.3-41.3) for the 217 patients with wild-type BRAF status and 29.7% (95% CI, 19.7-41.5) for the 74 with mutant BRAF status. The objective response rates did not seem to be affected by prior BRAF inhibitor therapy, prior ipilimumab therapy, or PD-L1 status of the tumor. The median duration of objective response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 11.1-24.0 months) for wild-type BRAF and 11.2 months (95% CI, 7.3-22.9 months) for mutant BRAF. Median time to objective response was 2.2 months in both patient groups. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events of any grade was 68.3% in the wild-type BRAF group and 58.5% in the mutant BRAF group, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events in 11.7% and 2.8% of patients, respectively. Treatment-related AEs of any grade that occurred in at least 5% of patients in either group were fatigue, pruritus, rash, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this retrospective analysis suggest that nivolumab has similar efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with wild-type or mutant BRAF, regardless of prior BRAF inhibitor or ipilimumab treatment.