Mohammed M. Milhem

Improved Survival with MEK Inhibition in BRAF-Mutated Melanoma

BACKGROUND Activating mutations in serine-threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF) are found in 50% of patients with advanced melanoma. Selective BRAF-inhibitor therapy improves survival, as compared with chemotherapy, but responses are often short-lived. In previous trials, MEK inhibition appeared to be promising in this population. METHODS In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned 322 patients who had metastatic melanoma with a V600E or V600K BRAF mutation to receive either trametinib, an oral selective MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio. Patients received trametinib (2 mg orally) once daily or intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to receive trametinib. Progression-free survival was the primary end point, and overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months in the trametinib group and 1.5 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the trametinib group, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63; P<0.001). At 6 months, the rate of overall survival was 81% in the trametinib group and 67% in the chemotherapy group despite crossover (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92; P=0.01). Rash, diarrhea, and peripheral edema were the most common toxic effects in the trametinib group and were managed with dose interruption and dose reduction; asymptomatic and reversible reduction in the cardiac ejection fraction and ocular toxic effects occurred infrequently. Secondary skin neoplasms were not observed. CONCLUSIONS Trametinib, as compared with chemotherapy, improved rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients who had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.).

Talimogene Laherparepvec Improves Durable Response Rate in Patients With Advanced Melanoma

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Trabectedin or Dacarbazine for Metastatic Liposarcoma or Leiomyosarcoma After Failure of Conventional Chemotherapy: Results of a Phase III Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

PURPOSE This multicenter study, to our knowledge, is the first phase III trial to compare trabectedin versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after prior therapy with an anthracycline and at least one additional systemic regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive trabectedin or dacarbazine intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were disease control-progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate, and duration of response-as well as safety and patient-reported symptom scoring. RESULTS A total of 518 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either trabectedin (n = 345) or dacarbazine (n = 173). In the final analysis of PFS, trabectedin administration resulted in a 45% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with dacarbazine (median PFS for trabectedin v dacarbazine, 4.2 v 1.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.55; P < .001); benefits were observed across all preplanned subgroup analyses. The interim analysis of OS (64% censored) demonstrated a 13% reduction in risk of death in the trabectedin arm compared with dacarbazine (median OS for trabectedin v dacarbazine, 12.4 v 12.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .37). The safety profiles were consistent with the well-characterized toxicities of both agents, and the most common grade 3 to 4 adverse effects were myelosuppression and transient elevation of transaminases in the trabectedin arm. CONCLUSION Trabectedin demonstrates superior disease control versus conventional dacarbazine in patients who have advanced liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma after they experience failure of prior chemotherapy. Because disease control in advanced sarcomas is a clinically relevant end point, this study supports the activity of trabectedin for patients with these malignancies.

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

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.

Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab in Previously Untreated, Unresectable Stage IIIB-IV Melanoma

PURPOSE Combining immunotherapeutic agents with different mechanisms of action may enhance efficacy. We describe the safety and efficacy of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC; an oncolytic virus) in combination with ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 checkpoint inhibitor) in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS In this open-label, multicenter, phase Ib trial of T-VEC in combination with ipilimumab, T-VEC was administered intratumorally in week 1 (10(6) plaque-forming units/mL), then in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter (10(8) plaque-forming units/mL). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for four infusions, beginning in week 6. The primary end point was incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. Secondary end points were objective response rate by immune-related response criteria and safety. RESULTS Median duration of treatment with T-VEC was 13.3 weeks (range, 2.0 to 95.4 weeks). Median follow-up time for survival analysis was 20.0 months (1.0 to 25.4 months). Nineteen patients were included in the safety analysis. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred, and no new safety signals were detected. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were seen in 26.3% of patients; 15.8% had AEs attributed to T-VEC, and 21.1% had AEs attributed to ipilimumab. The objective response rate was 50%, and 44% of patients had a durable response lasting ≥ 6 months. Eighteen-month progression-free survival was 50%; 18-month overall survival was 67%. CONCLUSION T-VEC with ipilimumab had a tolerable safety profile, and the combination appeared to have greater efficacy than either T-VEC or ipilimumab monotherapy.

Results of an International Randomized Phase III Trial of the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Inhibitor Ridaforolimus Versus Placebo to Control Metastatic Sarcomas in Patients After Benefit From Prior Chemotherapy

PURPOSE Aberrant mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling is common in sarcomas and other malignancies. Drug resistance and toxicities often limit benefits of systemic chemotherapy used to treat metastatic sarcomas. This large randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluated the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus to assess maintenance of disease control in advanced sarcomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic soft tissue or bone sarcomas who achieved objective response or stable disease with prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive ridaforolimus 40 mg or placebo once per day for 5 days every week. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), best target lesion response, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS A total of 711 patients were enrolled, and 702 received blinded study drug. Ridaforolimus treatment led to a modest, although significant, improvement in PFS per independent review compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P = .001; median PFS, 17.7 v 14.6 weeks). Ridaforolimus induced a mean 1.3% decrease in target lesion size versus a 10.3% increase with placebo (P < .001). Median OS with ridaforolimus was 90.6 weeks versus 85.3 weeks with placebo (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.12; P = .46). Adverse events (AEs) more common with ridaforolimus included stomatitis, infections, fatigue, thrombocytopenia, noninfectious pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and rash. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were more common with ridaforolimus than placebo (64.1% v 25.6%). CONCLUSION Ridaforolimus delayed tumor progression to a small statistically significant degree in patients with metastatic sarcoma who experienced benefit with prior chemotherapy. Toxicities were observed with ridaforolimus, as expected with mTOR inhibition. These data provide a foundation on which to further improve control of sarcomas.

Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Advanced, Unresectable Melanoma

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 106 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 108 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.

Phase II study of selumetinib (sel) versus temozolomide (TMZ) in gnaq/Gna11 (Gq/11) mutant (mut) uveal melanoma (UM).

CRA9003 Background: Gq/11 mutations are early oncogenic events in UM resulting in MAPK pathway activation. We demonstrated decreased viability in UM cell lines harboring Gq/11 mut with sel, a small molecule inhibitor of MEK1/2 (Ambrosini, CCR 2012). METHODS We conducted a 16 center randomized phase II study of hyd-sulfate sel 75 mg BID vs TMZ 150 mg/m2 daily for 5 days in 28-day cycles (or DTIC 1000 mg/m2 q21 days) for patients (pts) with metastatic UM with a Q209 Gq/11 mut who have not received prior TMZ/DTIC. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and response rate (RR). Select pts underwent tumor biopsies at baseline and after 14 (+/- 3 days) of sel. Our statistical plan required ≥80 pts randomized and ≥68 events to detect a PFS hazard ratio of 0.6 (p=0.1). Randomization was stratified by mut (Gq vs G11), M stage and number of prior therapies (tx). Tumor assessment occurred every 4 weeks (wks) for 8 wks and then every 8 wks using RECIST 1.1. Pts receiving TMZ who progressed could receive sel (TMZ→sel). RESULTS 80 pts were randomized. Sel (n=39): median age 66 (range 32-86), 54% male, 54% G11 mut, median ECOG PS 0 (range 0-1), 97% M1c, median prior tx 0 (range 0-2). TMZ (n=41): median age 60 (range 34-81), 63% male, 58% G11 mut, median ECOG PS 0 (range 0-1), 93% M1c, median prior tx 0 (range 0-2). 11/39 (28%) pts on sel experienced grade (gr) 3 toxicity (tox) manageable with dose modification (5 CPK elevation, 3 LFT elevation, 1 rash, 1 lymphopenia, 1 edema). 1/41 (2%) pt on TMZ experienced gr 3 tox (neutropenia). No gr 4/5 tox occurred. 28 pts on sel underwent paired tumor biopsies with inhibition of pERK and cyclinD1 observed by Western blot at day 14. At interim analysis (9/25/12), 55 pts were evaluable with 45 progression events and 16 deaths. Sel (n=27): median PFS 16 wks (95% CI 8-30.9), RR 11%, median OS 11.8 months (95% CI 4.8-not reached). TMZ (n=28): median PFS 4 wks (95% CI 3.7-15), RR 0%, median OS 4.7 months (95% CI 4.3-14.3). TMZ→sel (n=25): median PFS 8.1 wks (95% CI 7-15), RR 0%. CONCLUSIONS Sel is the first drug to ever show improved clinical activity in UM relative to TMZ. Sustained target inhibition is observed with sel. Final results will be presented. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT01143402.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab treatment for metastatic sarcoma (Alliance A091401): two open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trials

BACKGROUND Patients with metastatic sarcoma have limited treatment options. Nivolumab and ipilimumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4, respectively. We investigated the activity and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic sarcoma. METHODS We did a multicentre, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 study that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older and had central pathology confirmation of sarcoma with at least one measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, evidence of metastatic, locally advanced or unresectable disease, an ECOG performance status of 0-1, and received at least one previous line of systemic therapy. Patients were assigned to treatment in an unblinded manner, as this trial was conducted as two independent, non-comparative phase 2 trials. Enrolled patients were assigned (1:1) via a dynamic allocation algorithm to intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. Thereafter, all patients received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma achieving a confirmed objective response. Analysis was per protocol. This study is ongoing although enrolment is closed. It is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02500797. FINDINGS Between Aug 13, 2015, and March 17, 2016, 96 patients from 15 sites in the USA underwent central pathology review for eligibility and 85 eligible patients, including planned over-enrolment, were allocated to receive either nivolumab monotherapy (43 patients) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (42 patients). The primary endpoint analysis was done according to protocol specifications in the first 76 eligible patients (38 patients per group). The number of confirmed responses was two (5% [92% CI 1-16] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab group and six (16% [7-30] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (four [10%] patients), decreased lymphocyte count (three [7%]), and dehydration, increased lipase, pain, pleural effusion, respiratory failure, secondary benign neoplasm, and urinary tract obstruction (two [5%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab group and anaemia (eight [19%] patients), hypotension (four [10%] patients), and pain and urinary tract infection (three [7%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in eight (19%) of 42 patients receiving monotherapy and 11 (26%) of 42 patients receiving combination therapy, and included anaemia, anorexia, dehydration, decreased platelet count, diarrhoea, fatigue, fever, increased creatinine, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased aspartate aminotransferase, hyponatraemia, pain, pleural effusion, and pruritus. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION Nivolumab alone does not warrant further study in an unselected sarcoma population given the limited efficacy. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab demonstrated promising efficacy in certain sarcoma subtypes, with a manageable safety profile comparable to current available treatment options. The combination therapy met its predefined primary study endpoint; further evaluation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in a randomised study is warranted. FUNDING Alliance Clinical Trials in Oncology, National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cycle for Survival.

METRIC phase III study: Efficacy of trametinib (T), a potent and selective MEK inhibitor (MEKi), in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy (C) in patients (pts) with BRAFV600E/K mutant advanced or metastatic melanoma (MM).

LBA8509 Background: Dacarbazine (D) and paclitaxel (P) have been used to treat MM pts with limited effect. The MM treatment landscape has recently changed with the approval of vemurafenib and ipilimumab in 2011, but secondary malignancies or other toxicities are of concerns. T is a reversible, highly selective allosteric inhibitor of MEK1/2 activation and kinase activity. In a PhII trial (NCT01037127), pts with BRAFV600E mutation MM had median PFS of 5.3 mos. This PhIII trial (NCT01245062) was conducted in pts with BRAFV600E/K mutant advanced or MM. METHODS Pts were randomized 2:1 to T (2mg QD) or C (D or P). Pts were stratified by baseline LDH level and prior C; pts in the C arm were allowed to crossover to receive T after confirmation of PD. Primary endpoint was PFS in pts with BRAFV600E mutation-positive MM and no prior brain mets; secondary endpoints were OS, ORR and safety in primary and ITT. PFS and OS were compared using a stratified log-rank test. The study was designed with ≥99% power and one-sided α = 0.025 to detect 57% reduction in the risk of PD or death in pts treated with T vs C. RESULTS Between Dec 2010 and Jul 2011, 322 pts were randomized to T (n=214) or C (n=108); 273 pts were BRAFV600E mutation-positive with no prior brain mets. HR for primary population for PFS by investigator was 0.44 (95% CI 0.31-0.64; p<0.0001) in favor of T with a median PFS of 4.8 mo vs 1.4 mo with C. PFS benefit in favor of T was observed in ITT; this was confirmed by an independent review. The confirmed ORR was 24% with T and 7% with C. HR for interim OS was 0.53 (95% CI 0.30-0.94; p=0.0181), in favor of T in primary population. OS benefit was consistent in ITT pop despite 51 pts crossover from C to T. The most frequent AEs with T were skin rash, diarrhea, edema, hypertension, fatigue. Known MEKi class effects were observed, e.g. chorioretinopathy (<1%) and decreased ejection fraction (7%). Grade 3 AEs in T arm were hypertenstion (12%) and rash (7%). CONCLUSIONS T is the first in class MEKi associated with a significant improvement of PFS and OS compared to C in pts with BRAFV600E/K mutant MM.