Search

The gut microbiome is emerging as an important modulator of the anti-seizure effects of the classic ketogenic diet. However, many variations of the ketogenic diet are used clinically to treat refractory epilepsy, and how different dietary formulations differentially modify the gut microbiome in ways that impact seizure outcome is poorly understood. We find that clinically prescribed ketogenic infant formulas vary in macronutrient ratio, fat source, and fiber content and also in their ability to promote resistance to 6-Hz psychomotor seizures in mice. By screening specific dietary variables for their effects on a model human infant microbial community, we observe that dietary fiber, rather than fat ratio or source, drives substantial metagenomic shifts. Addition of dietary fiber to a fiber-deficient ketogenic formula restores seizure resistance, and supplementing protective ketogenic formulas with excess dietary fiber further potentiates seizure resistance. By screening 13 fiber sources and types, we identify distinct subsets of metagenomic responses in the model human infant microbial community that correspond with increased seizure resistance in mice. In particular, supplementation with seizure-protective fibers enriches microbial representation of genes related to queuosine biosynthesis and preQ 0 biosynthesis and decreases representation of microbial genes related to sucrose degradation, which is also seen in seizure-protected mice that are fed fiber-containing ketogenic infant formulas. Overall, this study reveals that different formulations of clinical ketogenic diets, and dietary fiber content in particular, differentially impact seizure outcome in mice, likely through modification of the gut microbiome. Understanding interactions between dietary components of the ketogenic diet, the gut microbiome, and host susceptibility to seizures could inform novel microbiome-guided approaches to treat refractory epilepsy.

Purpose: The randomized phase III coBRIM study (NCT01689519) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. We report long-term follow-up of coBRIM, with at least 5 years since the last patient was randomized., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily on days 1-21 in each 28-day cycle) or placebo in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily)., Results: 495 patients were randomized to cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (n = 247) or placebo plus vemurafenib (n = 248). Median follow-up was 21.2 months for cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 16.6 months for placebo plus vemurafenib. Median OS was 22.5 months (95% CI, 20.3-28.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 17.4 months (95% CI, 15.0-19.8) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year OS rates were 31% and 26%, respectively. Median PFS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.5-14.8) with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.5) with placebo plus vemurafenib; 5-year PFS rates were 14% and 10%, respectively. OS and PFS were longest in patients with normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase levels and low tumor burden, and in those achieving complete response. The safety profile remained consistent with previously published reports., Conclusions: Extended follow-up of coBRIM confirms the long-term clinical benefit and safety profile of cobimetinib plus vemurafenib compared with vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: The treatment of advanced BRAF V600 -mutated melanomas with BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) has improved survival, but the efficacy of BRAFi varies among individuals and the development of acquired resistance to BRAFi through reactivation of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling is common. We performed an exploratory, retrospective analysis to investigate the effects of BRAF V600 allelic balance, coexisting oncogene mutations, cell proliferation signaling levels, and loss of PTEN expression on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients in the phase III coBRIM study, which compared the combination of the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib with the BRAFi vemurafenib versus vemurafenib as monotherapy., Methods: Baseline tumor samples from the intention-to-treat population were analyzed by targeted deep sequencing at a median coverage of 3,600× and by immunohistochemistry for cell proliferation markers, BRAF V600E , and PTEN. The association of these biomarkers with PFS was assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling. Gene expression in relation to loss of PTEN was profiled by RNA sequencing in 205 patient samples and 42 BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma cell lines., Results: Neither BRAF V600 allelic balance nor coexisting mutations in the RAS/RAF/RTK pathway affected PFS in either treatment group. Increased baseline MAPK signaling and cell proliferation did not affect PFS in patients treated with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib. PTEN loss was associated with reduced PFS in patients treated with vemurafenib alone but not in patients treated with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib., Conclusion: Deeper inhibition of the MAPK pathway through targeting of both MEK and BRAF may override the effects of tumor heterogeneity and improve PFS in all patients with advanced BRAF V600 melanoma.

The prognostic significance of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) on treatment outcomes in patients receiving BRAF with or without MEK inhibitors is not well understood. This retrospective exploratory analysis evaluated the association of tumour PD-L1 expression with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among 210 patients in the coBRIM trial treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib or placebo plus vemurafenib. In the vemurafenib cohort, there was a trend of increased PFS and OS in those with PD-L1 + melanoma, with hazard ratios (HRs; PD-L1 + vs. PD-L1 - ) of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.46-1.07) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.42-1.13) for PFS and OS, respectively. However, in patients treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib, a similar trend was not observed with HRs (PD-L1 + versus PD-L1 - ) of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.66-1.68) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.57-1.57) for PFS and OS, respectively. The combination cobimetinib plus vemurafenib appears to overcome the poor prognosis associated with low PD-L1 expression., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Obesity has been linked to increased mortality in several cancer types; however, the relation between obesity and survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between body-mass index (BMI) and progression-free survival or overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma who received targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy., Methods: This retrospective study analysed independent cohorts of patients with metastatic melanoma assigned to treatment with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy in randomised clinical trials and one retrospective study of patients treated with immunotherapy. Patients were classified according to BMI, following the WHO definitions, as underweight, normal, overweight, or obese. Patients without BMI and underweight patients were excluded. The primary outcomes were the associations between BMI and progression-free survival or overall survival, stratified by treatment type and sex. We did multivariable analyses in the independent cohorts, and combined adjusted hazard ratios in a mixed-effects meta-analysis to provide a precise estimate of the association between BMI and survival outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed with meta-regression analyses. Analyses were done on the predefined intention-to-treat population in the randomised controlled trials and on all patients included in the retrospective study., Findings: The six cohorts consisted of a total of 2046 patients with metastatic melanoma treated with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy between Aug 8, 2006, and Jan 15, 2016. 1918 patients were included in the analysis. Two cohorts containing patients from randomised controlled trials treated with targeted therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib [n=599] and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib [n=240]), two cohorts containing patients treated with immunotherapy (one randomised controlled trial of ipilimumab plus dacarbazine [n=207] and a retrospective cohort treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab [n=331]), and two cohorts containing patients treated with chemotherapy (two randomised controlled trials of dacarbazine [n=320 and n=221]) were classified according to BMI as normal (694 [36%] patients), overweight (711 [37%]), or obese (513 [27%]). In the pooled analysis, obesity, compared with normal BMI, was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma (average adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·66-0·90] for progression-free survival and 0·74 [0·58-0·95] for overall survival). The survival benefit associated with obesity was restricted to patients treated with targeted therapy (HR 0·72 [0·57-0·91] for progression-free survival and 0·60 [0·45-0·79] for overall survival) and immunotherapy (HR 0·75 [0·56-1·00] and 0·64 [0·47-0·86]). No associations were observed with chemotherapy (HR 0·87 [0·65-1·17, p interaction =0·61] for progression-free survival and 1·03 [0·80-1·34, p interaction =0·01] for overall survival). The association of BMI with overall survival for patients treated with targeted and immune therapies differed by sex, with inverse associations in men (HR 0·53 [0·40-0·70]), but no associations observed in women (HR 0·85 [0·61-1·18, p interaction =0·03])., Interpretation: Our results suggest that in patients with metastatic melanoma, obesity is associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with those outcomes in patients with normal BMI, and that this association is mainly seen in male patients treated with targeted or immune therapy. These results have implications for the design of future clinical trials for patients with metastatic melanoma and the magnitude of the benefit found supports further investigation of the underlying mechanism of these associations., Funding: ASCO/CCF Young Investigator Award, ASCO/CCF Career Development Award, MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Melanoma Moonshot Program, MDACC Melanoma SPORE, and the Dr Miriam and Sheldon G Adelson Medical Research Foundation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Onartuzumab is a monovalent monoclonal antibody that binds with the extracellular domain of the MET receptor. Given the role of MET in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we investigated whether onartuzumab added to first-line chemotherapy efficacy in non-squamous NSCLC., Methods: Patients with untreated stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC, stratified by MET diagnostic status, were randomized to receive onartuzumab (15 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) or placebo in combination with either paclitaxel/platinum/bevacizumab (bevacizumab cohort), or in combination with platinum/pemetrexed (pemetrexed cohort) with maintenance bevacizumab or pemetrexed and onartuzumab/placebo as appropriate. Co-primary endpoints of this phase II study were progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients and in MET+ patients (2+/3+), defined by the Ventana immunohistochemistry assay; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and pharmacokinetics., Results: Efficacy data were available for 139 and 120 patients in the bevacizumab and pemetrexed cohorts, respectively. No benefit was seen in the PFS endpoint in the intent-to treat population of either cohort, but was numerically worse in the onartuzumab arm of the MET+ subgroup of the bevacizumab cohort. The onartuzumab and placebo arms had similar ORR and OS results in both cohorts. A higher incidence of some adverse events was observed with onartuzumab versus placebo, including peripheral edema (30% vs. 3%, bevacizumab cohort; 48% vs. 14%, pemetrexed cohort) and venous thromboembolic events (bevacizumab cohort only, 15% vs. 6%)., Conclusion: Onartuzumab does not appear to provide any additional clinical benefit when given in combination with current first-line standard-of-care chemotherapy for non-squamous NSCLC., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Onartuzumab, a recombinant humanized monovalent monoclonal antibody directed against MET, the receptor for the hepatocyte growth factor, has been investigated for the treatment of solid tumors. This publication describes the safety profile of onartuzumab in patients with solid tumors using data from the global onartuzumab clinical development program., Methods: Adverse event (AE) and laboratory data from onartuzumab phase II/III studies were analyzed and coded into standardized terms according to industry standards. The severity of AEs was assessed using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria, Version 4. Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) AEs were grouped using the standardized MedDRA queries (SMQs) "gastrointestinal (GI) perforation", "embolic and thrombotic events, venous (VTE)", and "embolic and thrombotic events, arterial (ATE)", and the Adverse Event Group Term (AEGT) "edema." The safety evaluable populations (patients who received at least one dose of study treatment) for each study were included in this analysis., Results: A total of 773 onartuzumab-treated patients from seven studies (phase II, n = 6; phase III, n = 1) were included. Edema and VTEs were reported in onartuzumab-treated patients in all seven studies. Edema events in onartuzumab arms were generally grade 1-2 in severity, observed more frequently than in control arms and at incidences ranging from 25.4-65.7% for all grades and from 1.2-14.1% for grade 3. Hypoalbuminemia was also more frequent in onartuzumab arms and observed at frequencies between 77.8% and 98.3%. The highest frequencies of all grade and grade ≥3 VTE events were 30.3% and 17.2%, respectively in onartuzumab arms. The cumulative incidence of all grade ATE events ranged from 0-5.6% (grade ≥3, 0-5.1%) in onartuzumab arms. The frequency of GI perforation was below 10% in all studies; the highest estimates were observed in studies with onartuzumab plus bevacizumab for all grades (0-6.2%) and grade ≥3 (0-6.2%)., Conclusions: The frequencies of VTE, ATE, GI perforation, hypoalbuminemia, and edema in clinical studies were higher in patients receiving onartuzumab than in control arms; these are considered to be expected events in patients receiving onartuzumab.

Purpose: Phase II trials with biochemotherapy (BCT) have shown encouraging response rates in metastatic melanoma, and meta-analyses and one phase III trial have suggested a survival benefit. In an effort to determine the relative efficacy of BCT compared with chemotherapy alone, a phase III trial was performed within the United States Intergroup., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (CVD) either alone or concurrent with interleukin-2 and interferon alfa-2b (BCT). Treatment cycles were repeated at 21-day intervals for a maximum of four cycles. Tumor response was assessed after cycles 2 and 4, then every 3 months., Results: Four hundred fifteen patients were enrolled, and 395 patients (CVD, n = 195; BCT, n = 200) were deemed eligible and assessable. The two study arms were well balanced for stratification factors and other prognostic factors. Response rate was 19.5% for BCT and 13.8% for CVD (P = .140). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer for BCT than for CVD (4.8 v 2.9 months; P = .015), although this did not translate into an advantage in either median overall survival (9.0 v 8.7 months) or the percentage of patients alive at 1 year (41% v 36.9%). More patients experienced grade 3 or worse toxic events with BCT than CVD (95% v 73%; P = .001)., Conclusion: Although BCT produced slightly higher response rates and longer median progression-free survival than CVD alone, this was not associated with either improved overall survival or durable responses. Considering the extra toxicity and complexity, this concurrent BCT regimen cannot be recommended for patients with metastatic melanoma.