David Hogg

Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

BACKGROUNDnAn improvement in overall survival among patients with metastatic melanoma has been an elusive goal. In this phase 3 study, ipilimumab--which blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 to potentiate an antitumor T-cell response--administered with or without a glycoprotein 100 (gp100) peptide vaccine was compared with gp100 alone in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma.nnnMETHODSnA total of 676 HLA-A*0201-positive patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, whose disease had progressed while they were receiving therapy for metastatic disease, were randomly assigned, in a 3:1:1 ratio, to receive ipilimumab plus gp100 (403 patients), ipilimumab alone (137), or gp100 alone (136). Ipilimumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight, was administered with or without gp100 every 3 weeks for up to four treatments (induction). Eligible patients could receive reinduction therapy. The primary end point was overall survival.nnnRESULTSnThe median overall survival was 10.0 months among patients receiving ipilimumab plus gp100, as compared with 6.4 months among patients receiving gp100 alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.68; P<0.001). The median overall survival with ipilimumab alone was 10.1 months (hazard ratio for death in the comparison with gp100 alone, 0.66; P=0.003). No difference in overall survival was detected between the ipilimumab groups (hazard ratio with ipilimumab plus gp100, 1.04; P=0.76). Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 10 to 15% of patients treated with ipilimumab and in 3% treated with gp100 alone. There were 14 deaths related to the study drugs (2.1%), and 7 were associated with immune-related adverse events.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIpilimumab, with or without a gp100 peptide vaccine, as compared with gp100 alone, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. Adverse events can be severe, long-lasting, or both, but most are reversible with appropriate treatment. (Funded by Medarex and Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094653.)

Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAFV600E and BRAFV600K mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM-3): extended follow-up of a phase 3, randomised, open-label study

BACKGROUNDnIn 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.nnnMETHODSnPatients 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.nnnFINDINGSn675 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<0·0001). For the 598 (91%) patients with BRAF(V600E) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·9-14·9) compared with 10·0 months (8·0-14·0) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·93]; p=0·0085); median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·2-7·0) and 1·6 months (1·6-2·1), respectively (HR 0·39 [95% CI 0·33-0·47]; p<0·0001). For the 57 (9%) patients with BRAF(V600K) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 14·5 months (95% CI 11·2-not estimable) compared with 7·6 months (6·1-16·6) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·21-0·90]; p=0·024); median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·4-9·0) and 1·7 months (1·4-2·9), respectively (HR 0·30 [95% CI 0·16-0·56]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3-4 events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (65 [19%] of 337 patients) and keratoacanthomas (34 [10%]), rash (30 [9%]), and abnormal liver function tests (38 [11%]) in the vemurafenib group and neutropenia (26 [9%] of 287 patients) in the dacarbazine group. Eight (2%) patients in the vemurafenib group and seven (2%) in the dacarbazine group had grade 5 events.nnnINTERPRETATIONnInhibition of BRAF with vemurafenib improves survival in patients with the most common BRAF(V600E) mutation and in patients with the less common BRAF(V600K) mutation.nnnFUNDINGnF Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

Results of a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Sorafenib in Combination With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel As Second-Line Treatment in Patients With Unresectable Stage III or Stage IV Melanoma

PURPOSEnThis phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) in patients with advanced melanoma who had progressed on a dacarbazine- or temozolomide-containing regimen.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnA total of 270 patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 plus intravenous carboplatin at area under curve 6 (AUC 6) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle followed by either placebo (n = 135) or oral sorafenib 400 mg (n = 135) twice daily on days 2 to 19. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary and tertiary end points included overall survival and incidence of best response, respectively.nnnRESULTSnThe median PFS was 17.9 weeks for the placebo plus CP arm and 17.4 weeks for the sorafenib plus CP arm (hazard ratio, 0.91; 99% CI, 0.63 to 1.31; two-sided log-rank test P = .49). Response rate was 11% with placebo versus 12% with sorafenib. Dermatologic events, grade 3 thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and fatigue were more common in patients treated with sorafenib plus CP versus placebo plus CP.nnnCONCLUSIONnIn this study, the addition of sorafenib to CP did not improve any of the end points over placebo plus CP and cannot be recommended in the second-line setting for patients with advanced melanoma. Both regimens had clinically acceptable toxicity profiles with no unexpected adverse events. A trial of similar design for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma (intergroup trial E2603) is currently ongoing.

Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

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.)

Failure of a medulloblastoma-derived mutant of SUFU to suppress WNT signaling

Germline mutations of APC in patients with Turcot syndrome (colon cancer and medulloblastoma), was well as somatic mutations of APC, β-catenin, and Axin in sporadic medulloblastomas (MBs) have shown the importance of WNT signaling in the pathogenesis of MB. A subset of children with MB have germline mutations of SUFU, a known inhibitor of Hedgehog signal transduction. A recent report suggested that murine Sufu can bind β-catenin, export it from the nucleus, and thereby repress β-catenin/T-cell factor (Tcf)-mediated transcription. We show that an MB-derived mutant of SUFU has lost the ability to decrease nuclear levels of β-catenin, and cannot inhibit β-catenin/Tcf-mediated transcription as compared to wild type SUFU. Our results suggest that loss of function of SUFU results in overactivity of both the Sonic Hedgehog, and the WNT signaling pathways, leading to excessive proliferation and failure to differentiate resulting in MB.

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

BACKGROUNDnThere 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.nnnMETHODSnNEMO 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.nnnFINDINGSnBetween 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.nnnINTERPRETATIONnBinimetinib 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.nnnFUNDINGnArray BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Phenotypic Heterogeneity in Multiple Myeloma Families

PURPOSEnTo describe a series of families with familial multiple myeloma (MM). Observations were used to generate hypotheses about the role of genetic factors, the mode of inheritance of these factors, and the association of other cancers with familial MM.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnThis observational study consisted of 39 families with multiple cases of MM or related disorders from four collaborating research centers. Each center followed its usual family study method. Probands were interviewed, and, when possible, cancers were verified by medical records and pathology review. A working pedigree was compiled on each family.nnnRESULTSnSeventeen families had affected members in two or more generations, and eight families had two or more affected members in a single generation. Four families had two or more members with plasma cell dyscrasias, with or without a single case of MM. In the remaining 10 families, a single MM case occurred with a family history of other cancers. Other cancers observed in family members included hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. In families with MM in multiple generations, there was a decrease in the age at MM diagnosis in successive generations.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe study of familial MM may provide insights into the pathogenesis and, ultimately, the control and prevention of MM and related disorders. Population-based epidemiologic studies are crucial, but because of the rarity of familial MM, a concerted case-finding approach may also be fruitful. Therefore, we propose an international consortium to study familial MM, and we invite all interested colleagues to participate.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases (COMBI-MB): a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUNDnDabrafenib plus trametinib improves clinical outcomes in BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma without brain metastases; however, the activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib has not been studied in active melanoma brain metastases. Here, we report results from the phase 2 COMBI-MB trial. Our aim was to build on the current body of evidence of targeted therapy in melanoma brain metastases through an evaluation of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases.nnnMETHODSnThis ongoing, multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study evaluated oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice per day) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once per day) in four patient cohorts with melanoma brain metastases enrolled from 32 hospitals and institutions in Europe, North America, and Australia: (A) BRAFV600E-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with no previous local brain therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; (B) BRAFV600E-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; (C) BRAFV600D/K/R-positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; and (D) BRAFV600D/E/K/R-positive, symptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0, 1, or 2. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed intracranial response in cohort A in the all-treated-patients population. Secondary endpoints included intracranial response in cohorts B, C, and D. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02039947.nnnFINDINGSnBetween Feb 28, 2014, and Aug 5, 2016, 125 patients were enrolled in the study: 76 patients in cohort A; 16 patients in cohort B; 16 patients in cohort C; and 17 patients in cohort D. At the data cutoff (Nov 28, 2016) after a median follow-up of 8·5 months (IQR 5·5-14·0), 44 (58%; 95% CI 46-69) of 76 patients in cohort A achieved an intracranial response. Intracranial response by investigator assessment was also achieved in nine (56%; 95% CI 30-80) of 16 patients in cohort B, seven (44%; 20-70) of 16 patients in cohort C, and ten (59%; 33-82) of 17 patients in cohort D. The most common serious adverse events related to study treatment were pyrexia for dabrafenib (eight [6%] of 125 patients) and decreased ejection fraction (five [4%]) for trametinib. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of study drug relationship, were pyrexia (four [3%] of 125) and headache (three [2%]).nnnINTERPRETATIONnDabrafenib plus trametinib was active with a manageable safety profile in this melanoma population that was consistent with previous dabrafenib plus trametinib studies in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma without brain metastases, but the median duration of response was relatively short. These results provide evidence of clinical benefit with dabrafenib plus trametinib and support the need for additional research to further improve outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases.nnnFUNDINGnNovartis.

Eosinophilic Fasciitis and Acute Encephalopathy Toxicity from Pembrolizumab Treatment of a Patient with Metastatic Melanoma

The patterns and kinetics of toxicity with anti–PD-1 agents are emerging. The incidence of grade 3 or above toxicities is low. We identify an idiosyncratic toxicity, eosinophilic fasciitis, that requires particular clinical vigilance to enable diagnosis and management. Anti–PD-1 inhibitors have significant activity in metastatic melanoma. Responses often occur early and may be sustained. The optimal duration of treatment with these agents is unknown. Here, we report the case of a 51-year-old woman treated with pembrolizumab, as part of the Keynote-001 trial, as first-line treatment for metastatic disease. She experienced a complete response after 13.8 months of treatment with no adverse events. One month after the last drug infusion and 18 months from starting treatment, the patient presented with eosinophilic fasciitis. She then developed acute confusion and weakness, thought to be due to intracranial vasculitis. High-dose steroids were initiated with resolution of the fasciitis. Aspirin was commenced for presumed vasculitis with resolution of the neurologic symptoms. To our knowledge, there are no previous reports of eosinophilic fasciitis or cerebral vasculitis due to anti–PD-1 agents. This case demonstrates that toxicity may occur in association with pembrolizumab treatment after a prolonged period of treatment without toxicity. Future trials should explore the optimal duration of treatment with pembrolizumab. Cancer Immunol Res; 4(3); 175–8. ©2016 AACR.

Subacute CNS demyelination after treatment with nivolumab for melanoma

Checkpoint blockade carries risks of immune-related adverse effects, but frequency and severity are unknown. A patient is described who received anti–CTLA-4 (ipilimumab), and then anti–PD-1 (nivolumab). The patient developed lethal subacute and progressive CNS demyelination. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) or programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) has improved the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. These agents carry a certain risk of adverse immune-related events. We present a patient with widely metastatic melanoma who was initially treated with ipilimumab and subsequently with nivolumab. After four infusions of nivolumab, he developed subacute multifocal central nervous system (CNS) demyelination. Nivolumab was discontinued and, despite immunosuppressive therapy, the largest lesion progressed significantly, whereas another lesion showed radiographic improvement. After further progression, the patient succumbed to his CNS lesions 4 months later. Autopsy revealed extensive demyelination, a mild multifocal T-cell–rich perivascular lymphoid infiltrate, abundant macrophages, and necrosis. There was no metastatic melanoma in the brain. CNS demyelination has not been described in association with nivolumab. We hypothesize that the combination therapy of ipilimumab and subsequent nivolumab accounted for the severity of the demyelinating process in this patient. This case, with comprehensive clinical, molecular, and neuropathologic characterization, illustrates the need for awareness of these potential CNS complications with the use of multiple checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer Immunol Res; 3(12); 1299–302. ©2015 AACR.