Mary Guckert

Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: A multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in studies of phase 1 and 2 in patients with BRAF(V600)-mutated metastatic melanoma. We studied the efficacy of dabrafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutated metastatic melanoma. METHODS We enrolled patients in this open-label phase 3 trial between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 1, 2011. This report is based on a data cutoff date of Dec 19, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, stage IV or unresectable stage III BRAF(V600E) mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily, orally) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (unresectable III+IVM1a+IVM1b vs IVM1c). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and was analysed by intention to treat; safety was assessed per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227889. FINDINGS Of the 733 patients screened, 250 were randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib (187 patients) or dacarbazine (63 patients). Median progression-free survival was 5·1 months for dabrafenib and 2·7 months for dacarbazine, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·30 (95% CI 0·18-0·51; p<0·0001). At data cutoff, 107 (57%) patients in the dabrafenib group and 14 (22%) in the dacarbazine group remained on randomised treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 100 (53%) of the 187 patients who received dabrafenib and in 26 (44%) of the 59 patients who received dacarbazine. The most common adverse events with dabrafenib were skin-related toxic effects, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. The most common adverse events with dacarbazine were nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, fatigue, and asthenia. Grade 3-4 adverse events were uncommon in both groups. INTERPRETATION Dabrafenib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain (BREAK-MB): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Brain metastases are common in patients with metastatic melanoma and median overall survival from their diagnosis is typically 17-22 weeks. We assessed dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain. METHODS We undertook a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial in 24 centres in six countries. We enrolled patients with histologically confirmed Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma and at least one asymptomatic brain metastasis (≥5 mm and ≤40 mm in diameter). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were split into two cohorts: those in cohort A had not received previous local treatment for brain metastases and those in cohort B had progressive brain metastases after previous local treatments. Patients received 150 mg oral dabrafenib twice a day until disease progression, death, or unacceptable adverse events. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma who achieved an overall intracranial response, which was defined as a complete response or partial response assessed with a modified form of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1). We included patients who received at least one dose of dabrafenib in efficacy and safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01266967. FINDINGS Between Feb 2, 2011, and Aug 5, 2011, we enrolled 172 patients: 89 (52%) in cohort A and 83 (48%) in cohort B. 139 (81%) had Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma. 29 (39·2%, 95% CI 28·0-51·2) of 74 patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma in cohort A achieved an overall intracranial response, as did 20 (30·8%, 19·9-43·4) of 65 in cohort B. One (6·7%, 0·2-31·9) of 15 patients with Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma achieved an overall intracranial response in cohort A, as did four (22·2%, 6·4-47·6) of 18 such patients in cohort B. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 38 (22%) patients. Eleven (6%) patients developed squamous-cell carcinoma (five [6%] patients in cohort A, of whom one also had keratoacanthoma; six [7%] in cohort B). Four grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in cohort A: one blood amylase increase, one convulsion, one lipase increase, and one neutropenia. Two grade 4 events occurred in cohort B: one agranulocytosis and one intracranial haemorrhage. 51 (30%) patients had a serious adverse event. The three most frequent serious adverse events were pyrexia (ten [6%] patients), intracranial haemorrhage (ten [6%]; one treatment-related), and squamous-cell carcinoma (11 [6%]). INTERPRETATION Dabrafenib has activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma and brain metastases irrespective of whether they are untreated or have been previously treated but have progressed. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Phase II Trial (BREAK-2) of the BRAF Inhibitor Dabrafenib (GSK2118436) in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma

PURPOSE Dabrafenib (GSK2118436) is a potent inhibitor of mutated BRAF kinase. Our multicenter, single-arm, phase II study assessed the safety and clinical activity of dabrafenib in BRAF(V600E/K) mutation-positive metastatic melanoma (mut(+) MM). PATIENTS AND METHODS Histologically confirmed patients with stage IV BRAF(V600E/K) mut(+) MM received oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily until disease progression, death, or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate in BRAF(V600E) mut(+) MM patients. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Exploratory objectives included the comparison of BRAF mutation status between tumor-specific circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and tumor tissue, and the evaluation of cfDNA as a predictor of clinical outcome. RESULTS Seventy-six patients with BRAF(V600E) and 16 patients with BRAF(V600K) mut(+) MM were enrolled onto the study. In the BRAF(V600E) group, 45 patients (59%) had a confirmed response (95% CI, 48.2 to 70.3), including five patients (7%) with complete responses. Two patients (13%) with BRAF(V600K) mut(+) MM had a confirmed partial response (95% CI, 0 to 28.7). In the BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) groups, median PFS was 6.3 months and 4.5 months, and median OS was 13.1 months and 12.9 months, respectively. The most common AEs were arthralgia (33%), hyperkeratosis (27%), and pyrexia (24%). Overall, 25 patients (27%) experienced a serious AE and nine patients (10%) had squamous cell carcinoma. Baseline cfDNA levels predicted response rate and PFS in BRAF(V600E) mut(+) MM patients. CONCLUSION Dabrafenib was well tolerated and clinically active in patients with BRAF(V600E/K) mut(+) MM. cfDNA may be a useful prognostic and response marker in future studies.

Efficacy and safety of casopitant mesylate, a neurokinin 1 (NK1)-receptor antagonist, in prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a clinical management problem after treatment with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We therefore designed and carried out a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess whether a three-drug antiemetic regimen of ondansetron, dexamethasone, and the neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate was able to prevent acute and delayed CINV events in patients naive to chemotherapy with a malignant solid tumour who were scheduled to receive cisplatin-based HEC regimens. METHODS The study was done between Nov 6, 2006, and Oct 9, 2007, in 77 participating centres in 22 countries. All 810 patients enrolled in the trial received dexamethasone and ondansetron. Patients were randomly assigned to also receive placebo (n=269), single oral dose of casopitant mesylate (150 mg oral, n=271), or 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate (90 mg intravenous on day 1 plus 50 mg oral on days 2 and 3, n=270). Randomisation was done using a central telephone system at the study level, because some centres were expected to recruit only a few patients during the study period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no vomiting, retching, or use of rescue medications) in the first 120 h after receiving HEC. Efficacy analysis was done on the modified intention-to-treat population (n=800), which included all patients who received placebo or study drug and HEC (n=265 control, n=266 single-dose oral casopitant mesylate, n=269 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate). Safety was reported in 802 patients who received either placebo or study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00431236. FINDINGS Significantly more patients in each casopitant group achieved complete response in cycle 1 of HEC treatment than did those in the control group (175 [66%] patients in the control group, 228 [86%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group [p<0.0001 vs control], and 214 [80%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group (p=0.0004 vs control]). This improvement was sustained over multiple cycles of HEC. Adverse events occurred in 205 (77%) patients in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group and 203 (75%) patients in the 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate group compared with 194 (73%) of patients in the control group. The most common serious adverse events were neutropenia (n=5 [3%] in the control group, n=3 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=11 [4%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), febrile neutropenia (n=1 [<1%] in the control group, n=4 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=6 [2%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), and dehydration (n=4 [2%] in the control group, n=2 [<1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=1 [<1%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group). INTERPRETATION A three-drug regimen including a single oral dose or 3-day intravenous plus oral regimen of casopitant mesylate plus dexamethasone and ondansetron significantly reduced CINV events in patients receiving HEC compared with a two-drug regimen of dexamethasone and ondansetron. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Phase III Trial of Casopitant, a Novel Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist, for the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

PURPOSE The purpose of this phase III trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regimens containing casopitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the first cycle in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Predominantly female patients (98%) diagnosed with breast cancer (96%) who were chemotherapy-naïve and scheduled to receive an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) -based regimen were enrolled onto this multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial. All patients received dexamethasone 8 mg intravenously (IV) on day 1 and oral ondansetron 8 mg twice daily on days 1 to 3. Patients were randomly assigned to a control arm (placebo), a single oral dose casopitant arm (150 mg orally [PO] on day 1), a 3-day oral casopitant arm (150 mg PO on day 1 plus 50 mg PO on days 2 to 3), or a 3-day IV/oral casopitant arm (90 mg IV on day 1 plus 50 mg PO on days 2 to 3). The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no vomiting/retching or rescue medications) in the first 120 hours after the initiation of MEC. RESULTS A significantly greater proportion of patients in the single-dose oral casopitant arm, 3-day oral casopitant arm, and 3-day IV/oral casopitant arm achieved complete response (73%, 73%, and 74%, respectively) versus control (59%; P < .0001). The study did not demonstrate a reduced proportion of patients with nausea or significant nausea in those receiving casopitant. Adverse events were balanced among study arms. CONCLUSION All casopitant regimens studied were more effective than the control regimen. Casopitant was generally well tolerated.

Phase 1/2 study of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma

Daratumumab, a human CD38 immunoglobulin G1 kappa (IgG1κ) monoclonal antibody, has activity as monotherapy in multiple myeloma (MM). This phase 1/2 study investigated daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone in refractory and relapsed/refractory MM. Part 1 (dose escalation) evaluated 4 daratumumab doses plus lenalidomide (25 mg/day orally on days 1-21 of each cycle) and dexamethasone (40 mg/week). Part 2 (dose expansion) evaluated daratumumab at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and accelerated daratumumab infusions were studied. In part 1 (13 patients), no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and 16 mg/kg was selected as the R2PD. In part 2 (32 patients), median time since diagnosis was 3.2 years, with a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 1-3 prior therapies), including proteasome inhibitors (91%), alkylating agents (91%), autologous stem cell transplantation (78%), thalidomide (44%), and lenalidomide (34%); 22% of patients were refractory to the last line of therapy. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events (≥5%) included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. In part 2, infusion-related reactions (IRRs) occurred in 18 patients (56%); most were grade ≤2 (grade 3, 6.3%). IRRs predominantly occurred during first infusions and were more common during accelerated infusions. In part 2 (median follow-up of 15.6 months), overall response rate was 81%, with 8 stringent complete responses (25%), 3 complete responses (9%), and 9 very good partial responses (28%). Eighteen-month progression-free and overall survival rates were 72% (95% confidence interval, 51.7-85.0) and 90% (95% confidence interval, 73.1-96.8), respectively. Daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone resulted in rapid, deep, durable responses. The combination was well tolerated and consistent with the safety profiles observed with lenalidomide/dexamethasone or daratumumab monotherapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01615029.

Phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (BREAK-3) comparing the BRAF kinase inhibitor dabrafenib (GSK2118436) with dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated melanoma.

LBA8500^ Background: Dabrafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, has shown activity with a manageable safety profile in phase I/II studies in patients (pts) with BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic melanoma (MM). This phase III trial (NCT01227889) compared progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with advanced MM treated either with dabrafenib or dacarbazine (DTIC). METHODS Pts with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV BRAFV600E-mutated melanoma were randomized (3:1) and stratified by stage to dabrafenib (150 mg po bid) or DTIC (1000 mg/m2, IV, q3w). Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. Primary analysis for PFS was planned after 102 events. Pts on the DTIC arm were allowed to cross over once progression was confirmed by independent review (IR). Secondary endpoints included PFS by IR, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), duration of response, safety and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS 250 pts were enrolled at 93 centers globally from February to September 2011. 187 were randomized to dabrafenib and 63 to DTIC. 141pts were on study treatment at the data cut-off at December 19, 2011 (dabrafenib n = 127; DTIC n = 14), including 21/28 DTIC pts crossed over to dabrafenib. Median age was 52 years, 31% of pts were ECOG >1, 66% M1c, 33% LDH > ULN. Demographics were well balanced between the two arms. At the time of the primary analysis, there were 118 events (77 dabrafenib and 41 DTIC). The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.18-0.53; p < 0.0001). Median PFS was 5.1 months for dabrafenib and 2.7 for DTIC. OS data were immature, with 30 deaths reported. Confirmed RR was 53% for dabrafenib and 19% for DTIC. Benefits in PFS and RR were observed in all subgroups evaluated. Common adverse events (AEs) on the dabrafenib arm were hyperkeratosis (37%), headache (32%), pyrexia (28%), arthralgia (27%), skin papillomas (24%). Serious AEs (> 1%) on the dabrafenib arm included pyrexia (4%), squamous cell carcinomas (6%), and new primary melanomas (2%). CONCLUSIONS Dabrafenib demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS and ORR over DTIC with an acceptable safety profile.