Karl D. Lewis
University of Colorado Denver
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Karl D. Lewis.
The New England Journal of Medicine | 2012
Keith T. Flaherty; Jeffery R. Infante; Adil Daud; Rene Gonzalez; Richard F. Kefford; Jeffrey A. Sosman; Omid Hamid; Lynn M. Schuchter; Jonathan Cebon; Nageatte Ibrahim; Ragini Kudchadkar; Howard A. Burris; Gerald S. Falchook; Alain Patrick Algazi; Karl D. Lewis; Igor Puzanov; Peter F. Lebowitz; Ajay Singh; Shonda M Little; Peng Sun; Alicia Allred; Daniele Ouellet; Kevin B. Kim; Kiran Patel; Jeffrey S. Weber
BACKGROUND Resistance to therapy with BRAF kinase inhibitors is associated with reactivation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. To address this problem, we conducted a phase 1 and 2 trial of combined treatment with dabrafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, and trametinib, a selective MAPK kinase (MEK) inhibitor. METHODS In this open-label study involving 247 patients with metastatic melanoma and BRAF V600 mutations, we evaluated the pharmacokinetic activity and safety of oral dabrafenib (75 or 150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (1, 1.5, or 2 mg daily) in 85 patients and then randomly assigned 162 patients to receive combination therapy with dabrafenib (150 mg) plus trametinib (1 or 2 mg) or dabrafenib monotherapy. The primary end points were the incidence of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, survival free of melanoma progression, and response. Secondary end points were overall survival and pharmacokinetic activity. RESULTS Dose-limiting toxic effects were infrequently observed in patients receiving combination therapy with 150 mg of dabrafenib and 2 mg of trametinib (combination 150/2). Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was seen in 7% of patients receiving combination 150/2 and in 19% receiving monotherapy (P=0.09), whereas pyrexia was more common in the combination 150/2 group than in the monotherapy group (71% vs. 26%). Median progression-free survival in the combination 150/2 group was 9.4 months, as compared with 5.8 months in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.62; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response with combination 150/2 therapy was 76%, as compared with 54% with monotherapy (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Dabrafenib and trametinib were safely combined at full monotherapy doses. The rate of pyrexia was increased with combination therapy, whereas the rate of proliferative skin lesions was nonsignificantly reduced. Progression-free survival was significantly improved. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01072175.).
The New England Journal of Medicine | 2012
Jeffrey A. Sosman; Kevin B. Kim; Lynn M. Schuchter; Rene Gonzalez; Anna C. Pavlick; Jeffrey S. Weber; Grant A. McArthur; Thomas E. Hutson; Stergios J. Moschos; Keith T. Flaherty; Peter Hersey; Richard F. Kefford; Donald P. Lawrence; Igor Puzanov; Karl D. Lewis; Ravi K. Amaravadi; Bartosz Chmielowski; H. Jeffrey Lawrence; Yu Shyr; Fei Ye; Jiang Li; Keith Nolop; Richard J. Lee; Andrew K. Joe; Antoni Ribas
BACKGROUND Approximately 50% of melanomas harbor activating (V600) mutations in the serine-threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF). The oral BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib (PLX4032) frequently produced tumor regressions in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma in a phase 1 trial and improved overall survival in a phase 3 trial. METHODS We designed a multicenter phase 2 trial of vemurafenib in patients with previously treated BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma to investigate the efficacy of vemurafenib with respect to overall response rate (percentage of treated patients with a tumor response), duration of response, and overall survival. The primary end point was the overall response rate as ascertained by the independent review committee; overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS A total of 132 patients had a median follow-up of 12.9 months (range, 0.6 to 20.1). The confirmed overall response rate was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 62; 6% with a complete response and 47% with a partial response), the median duration of response was 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.6), and the median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.1). Primary progression was observed in only 14% of patients. Some patients had a response after receiving vemurafenib for more than 6 months. The median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 18.3). The most common adverse events were grade 1 or 2 arthralgia, rash, photosensitivity, fatigue, and alopecia. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas (the majority, keratoacanthoma type) were diagnosed in 26% of patients. CONCLUSIONS Vemurafenib induces clinical responses in more than half of patients with previously treated BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. In this study with a long follow-up, the median overall survival was approximately 16 months. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00949702.).
The New England Journal of Medicine | 2012
Aleksandar Sekulic; Michael R. Migden; Anthony E. Oro; Luc Dirix; Karl D. Lewis; John D. Hainsworth; James A. Solomon; Simon Yoo; Sarah T. Arron; Philip Friedlander; Ellen S. Marmur; Charles M. Rudin; Anne Lynn S. Chang; Jennifer A. Low; Howard Mackey; Robert L. Yauch; Richard A. Graham; Josina C. Reddy; Axel Hauschild
BACKGROUND Alterations in hedgehog signaling are implicated in the pathogenesis of basal-cell carcinoma. Although most basal-cell carcinomas are treated surgically, no effective therapy exists for locally advanced or metastatic basal-cell carcinoma. A phase 1 study of vismodegib (GDC-0449), a first-in-class, small-molecule inhibitor of the hedgehog pathway, showed a 58% response rate among patients with advanced basal-cell carcinoma. METHODS In this multicenter, international, two-cohort, nonrandomized study, we enrolled patients with metastatic basal-cell carcinoma and those with locally advanced basal-cell carcinoma who had inoperable disease or for whom surgery was inappropriate (because of multiple recurrences and a low likelihood of surgical cure, or substantial anticipated disfigurement). All patients received 150 mg of oral vismodegib daily. The primary end point was the independently assessed objective response rate; the primary hypotheses were that the response rate would be greater than 20% for patients with locally advanced basal-cell carcinoma and greater than 10% for those with metastatic basal-cell carcinoma. RESULTS In 33 patients with metastatic basal-cell carcinoma, the independently assessed response rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16 to 48; P=0.001). In 63 patients with locally advanced basal-cell carcinoma, the independently assessed response rate was 43% (95% CI, 31 to 56; P<0.001), with complete responses in 13 patients (21%). The median duration of response was 7.6 months in both cohorts. Adverse events occurring in more than 30% of patients were muscle spasms, alopecia, dysgeusia (taste disturbance), weight loss, and fatigue. Serious adverse events were reported in 25% of patients; seven deaths due to adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS Vismodegib is associated with tumor responses in patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Genentech; Erivance BCC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00833417.).
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2015
Robert Hans Ingemar Andtbacka; Howard L. Kaufman; Frances A. Collichio; Thomas Amatruda; Neil Senzer; Jason Chesney; Keith A. Delman; Lynn E. Spitler; Igor Puzanov; Sanjiv S. Agarwala; Mohammed M. Milhem; Lee D. Cranmer; Brendan D. Curti; Karl D. Lewis; Merrick I. Ross; Troy H. Guthrie; Gerald P. Linette; Gregory A. Daniels; Kevin J. Harrington; Mark R. Middleton; Wilson H. Miller; Jonathan S. Zager; Yining Ye; Bin Yao; Ai Li; Susan Doleman; Ari M. Vanderwalde; Jennifer Gansert; Robert Coffin
PURPOSE Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a herpes simplex virus type 1-derived oncolytic immunotherapy designed to selectively replicate within tumors and produce granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) to enhance systemic antitumor immune responses. T-VEC was compared with GM-CSF in patients with unresected stage IIIB to IV melanoma in a randomized open-label phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with injectable melanoma that was not surgically resectable were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to intralesional T-VEC or subcutaneous GM-CSF. The primary end point was durable response rate (DRR; objective response lasting continuously ≥ 6 months) per independent assessment. Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate. RESULTS Among 436 patients randomly assigned, DRR was significantly higher with T-VEC (16.3%; 95% CI, 12.1% to 20.5%) than GM-CSF (2.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 4.5%]; odds ratio, 8.9; P < .001). Overall response rate was also higher in the T-VEC arm (26.4%; 95% CI, 21.4% to 31.5% v 5.7%; 95% CI, 1.9% to 9.5%). Median OS was 23.3 months (95% CI, 19.5 to 29.6 months) with T-VEC and 18.9 months (95% CI, 16.0 to 23.7 months) with GM-CSF (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P = .051). T-VEC efficacy was most pronounced in patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease and in patients with treatment-naive disease. The most common adverse events (AEs) with T-VEC were fatigue, chills, and pyrexia. The only grade 3 or 4 AE occurring in ≥ 2% of T-VEC-treated patients was cellulitis (2.1%). No fatal treatment-related AEs occurred. CONCLUSION T-VEC is the first oncolytic immunotherapy to demonstrate therapeutic benefit against melanoma in a phase III clinical trial. T-VEC was well tolerated and resulted in a higher DRR (P < .001) and longer median OS (P = .051), particularly in untreated patients or those with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IVM1a disease. T-VEC represents a novel potential therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma.
Lancet Oncology | 2012
Gerald S. Falchook; Karl D. Lewis; Jeffrey R. Infante; Michael S. Gordon; Nicholas J. Vogelzang; Douglas J. DeMarini; Peng Sun; Christopher Moy; Stephen Szabo; Lori T Roadcap; Vijay Peddareddigari; Peter F. Lebowitz; Ngocdiep T. Le; Howard A. Burris; Wells A. Messersmith; Peter J. O'Dwyer; Kevin B. Kim; Keith T. Flaherty; Johanna C. Bendell; Rene Gonzalez; Razelle Kurzrock; Leslie A. Fecher
BACKGROUND MEK is a member of the MAPK signalling cascade that is commonly activated in melanoma. Direct inhibition of MEK blocks cell proliferation and induces apoptosis. We aimed to analyse safety, efficacy, and genotyping data for the oral, small-molecule MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with melanoma. METHODS We undertook a multicentre, phase 1 three-part study (dose escalation, cohort expansion, and pharmacodynamic assessment). The main results of this study are reported elsewhere; here we present data relating to patients with melanoma. We obtained tumour samples to assess BRAF mutational status, and available tissues underwent exploratory genotyping analysis. Disease response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and adverse events were defined by common toxicity criteria. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00687622. FINDINGS 97 patients with melanoma were enrolled, including 81 with cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma (36 BRAF mutant, 39 BRAF wild-type, six BRAF status unknown), and 16 with uveal melanoma. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash or dermatitis acneiform (n=80; 82%) and diarrhoea (44; 45%), most of which were grade 2 or lower. No cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas were recorded. Of 36 patients with BRAF mutations, 30 had not received a BRAF inhibitor before; two complete responses (both confirmed) and ten partial responses (eight confirmed) were noted in this subgroup (confirmed response rate, 33%). Median progression-free survival of this subgroup was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4). Of the six patients who had received previous BRAF inhibition, one unconfirmed partial response was recorded. Of 39 patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma, four partial responses were confirmed (confirmed response rate, 10%). INTERPRETATION Our data show substantial clinical activity of trametinib in melanoma and suggest that MEK is a valid therapeutic target. Differences in response rates according to mutations indicate the importance of mutational analyses in the future. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2013
Kevin B. Kim; Richard F. Kefford; Anna C. Pavlick; Jeffrey R. Infante; Antoni Ribas; Jeffrey A. Sosman; Leslie A. Fecher; Michael Millward; Grant A. McArthur; Patrick Hwu; Rene Gonzalez; Patrick A. Ott; Olivia S. Gardner; Daniele Ouellet; Yanmei Xu; Douglas J. DeMarini; Ngocdiep T. Le; Kiran Patel; Karl D. Lewis
PURPOSE BRAF mutations promote melanoma cell proliferation and survival primarily through activation of MEK. The purpose of this study was to determine the response rate (RR) for the selective, allosteric MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212), in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was an open-label, two-stage, phase II study with two cohorts. Patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor (cohort A) or treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (BRAF-inhibitor naive; cohort B) were enrolled. Patients received 2 mg of trametinib orally once daily. RESULTS In cohort A (n = 40), there were no confirmed objective responses and 11 patients (28%) with stable disease (SD); the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. In cohort B (n = 57), there was one (2%) complete response, 13 (23%) partial responses (PRs), and 29 patients (51%) with SD (confirmed RR, 25%); the median PFS was 4.0 months. One patient each with BRAF K601E and BRAF V600R had prolonged PR. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events for all patients were skin-related toxicity, nausea, peripheral edema, diarrhea, pruritis, and fatigue. No cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma was observed. CONCLUSION Trametinib was well tolerated. Significant clinical activity was observed in BRAF-inhibitor-naive patients previously treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Minimal clinical activity was observed as sequential therapy in patients previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor. Together, these data suggest that BRAF-inhibitor resistance mechanisms likely confer resistance to MEK-inhibitor monotherapy. These data support further evaluation of trametinib in BRAF-inhibitor-naive BRAF-mutant melanoma, including rarer forms of BRAF-mutant melanoma.
Lancet Oncology | 2016
Howard L. Kaufman; Jeffery Scott Russell; Omid Hamid; Shailender Bhatia; Patrick Terheyden; Sandra P. D'Angelo; Kent C. Shih; Celeste Lebbe; Gerald P. Linette; Michele Milella; Isaac Brownell; Karl D. Lewis; Jochen H. Lorch; Kevin M. Chin; Lisa Mahnke; Anja von Heydebreck; Jean Marie Cuillerot; Paul Nghiem
BACKGROUND Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare, aggressive skin cancer with poor prognosis in patients with advanced disease. Current standard care uses various cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, but responses are seldom durable. Tumour oncogenesis is linked to Merkel cell polyomavirus integration and ultraviolet-radiation-induced mutations, providing rationale for treatment with immunotherapy antibodies that target the PD-L1/PD-1 pathway. We assessed treatment with avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, in patients with stage IV Merkel cell carcinoma that had progressed after cytotoxic chemotherapy. METHODS In this multicentre, international, prospective, single-group, open-label, phase 2 trial, patients with stage IV chemotherapy-refractory, histologically confirmed Merkel cell carcinoma (aged ≥18 years) were enrolled from 35 cancer treatment centres and academic hospitals in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. Key eligibility criteria were an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, adequate haematological, hepatic, and renal function, and immune-competent status (patients with HIV, immunosuppression, haematological malignancies, and previous organ transplantation were excluded). Patient selection was not based on PD-L1 expression or Merkel cell polyomavirus status. Collection of biopsy material or use of archival tissue for these assessments was mandatory. Avelumab was given intravenously at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response (complete response or partial response) assessed according to RECIST version 1.1 by an independent review committee. Safety and clinical activity were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (the modified intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647. FINDINGS Between July 25, 2014, and Sept 3, 2015, 88 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of avelumab. Patients were followed up for a median of 10·4 months (IQR 8·6-13·1). The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 28 (31·8% [95·9% CI 21·9-43·1]) of 88 patients, including eight complete responses and 20 partial responses. Responses were ongoing in 23 (82%) of 28 patients at the time of analysis. Five grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in four (5%) patients: lymphopenia in two patients, blood creatine phosphokinase increase in one patient, aminotransferase increase in one patient, and blood cholesterol increase in one patient; there were no treatment-related grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths. Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in five patients (6%): enterocolitis, infusion-related reaction, aminotransferases increased, chondrocalcinosis, synovitis, and interstitial nephritis (n=1 each). INTERPRETATION Avelumab was associated with durable responses, most of which are still ongoing, and was well tolerated; hence, avelumab represents a new therapeutic option for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma. FUNDING Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2013
Kerstin Trunzer; Anna C. Pavlick; Lynn M. Schuchter; Rene Gonzalez; Grant A. McArthur; Thomas E. Hutson; Stergios J. Moschos; Keith T. Flaherty; Kevin B. Kim; Jeffrey S. Weber; Peter Hersey; Donald P. Lawrence; Patrick A. Ott; Ravi K. Amaravadi; Karl D. Lewis; Igor Puzanov; Roger S. Lo; Astrid Koehler; Mark M. Kockx; Olivia Spleiss; Annette Schell-Steven; Houston Gilbert; Louise Cockey; Gideon Bollag; Richard J. Lee; Andrew K. Joe; Jeffrey A. Sosman; Antoni Ribas
PURPOSE To assess pharmacodynamic effects and intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma, leading to an understanding of the mechanism of action of vemurafenib and ultimately to optimization of metastatic melanoma therapy. METHODS In the phase II clinical study NP22657 (BRIM-2), patients received oral doses of vemurafenib (960 mg twice per day). Serial biopsies were collected to study changes in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, cell-cycle progression, and factors causing intrinsic or acquired resistance by immunohistochemistry, DNA sequencing, or somatic mutation profiling. Results Vemurafenib inhibited MAPK signaling and cell-cycle progression. An association between the decrease in extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) phosphorylation and objective response was observed in paired biopsies (n = 22; P = .013). Low expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog showed a modest association with lower response. Baseline mutations in MEK1(P124) coexisting with BRAF(V600) were noted in seven of 92 samples; their presence did not preclude objective tumor responses. Acquired resistance to vemurafenib associated with reactivation of MAPK signaling as observed by elevated ERK1/2 phosphorylation levels in progressive lesions and the appearance of secondary NRAS(Q61) mutations or MEK1(Q56P) or MEK1(E203K) mutations. These two activating MEK1 mutations had not previously been observed in vivo in biopsies of progressive melanoma tumors. CONCLUSION Vemurafenib inhibits tumor proliferation and oncogenic BRAF signaling through the MAPK pathway. Acquired resistance results primarily from MAPK reactivation driven by the appearance of secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK1 in subsets of patients. The data suggest that inhibition downstream of BRAF should help to overcome acquired resistance.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2008
David F. McDermott; Jeffrey A. Sosman; Rene Gonzalez; F. Stephen Hodi; Gerald P. Linette; Jon Richards; James W. Jakub; Muralidhar Beeram; Stefano Tarantolo; Sanjiv S. Agarwala; Gary Frenette; Igor Puzanov; Lee D. Cranmer; Karl D. Lewis; John M. Kirkwood; J. Michael White; Chenghua Xia; Kiran Patel; Evan M. Hersh
PURPOSE This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus dacarbazine in patients with advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study enrolled chemotherapy-naive patients with stage III (unresectable) or IV melanoma. A total of 101 patients received placebo plus dacarbazine (n = 50) or sorafenib plus dacarbazine (n = 51). On day 1 of a 21-day cycle, patients received intravenous dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m(2) for a maximum of 16 cycles. Oral sorafenib 400 mg or placebo was administered twice a day continuously. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent assessment. Secondary and tertiary end points included time to progression (TTP), response rate, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median PFS in the sorafenib plus dacarbazine arm was 21.1 weeks versus 11.7 weeks in the placebo plus dacarbazine arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.665; P = .068). There were statistically significant improvements in PFS rates at 6 and 9 months, and in TTP (median, 21.1 v 11.7 weeks; HR, 0.619) in favor of the sorafenib plus dacarbazine arm. No difference in OS was observed (median, 51.3 v 45.6 weeks in the placebo plus dacarbazine and sorafenib plus dacarbazine arms, respectively; HR, 1.022). The regimen was well tolerated and had a manageable toxicity profile. CONCLUSION Sorafenib plus dacarbazine was well tolerated in patients with advanced melanoma and yielded an encouraging improvement in PFS. Based on these findings, additional studies with the combination are warranted in this patient population.
JAMA | 2014
Richard D. Carvajal; Jeffrey A. Sosman; Jorge Fernando Quevedo; Mohammed M. Milhem; Anthony M. Joshua; Ragini R. Kudchadkar; Gerald P. Linette; Thomas F. Gajewski; Jose Lutzky; David H. Lawson; Christopher D. Lao; Patrick J. Flynn; Mark R. Albertini; Takami Sato; Karl D. Lewis; Austin Doyle; Kristin K. Ancell; Katherine S. Panageas; Mark J. Bluth; Cyrus V. Hedvat; Joseph P. Erinjeri; Grazia Ambrosini; Brian P. Marr; David H. Abramson; Mark A. Dickson; Jedd D. Wolchok; Paul B. Chapman; Gary K. Schwartz
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.