Search

Early clinical data indicate that some patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer may benefit from program death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition, especially with enzalutamide. The IMbassador250 trial (no. NCT03016312) enrolled 759 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease progressed on abiraterone. The addition of atezolizumab to enzalutamide in an open-label randomized trial did not meet the primary endpoint of improved overall survival in unselected patients (stratified hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval (0.91, 1.37), P = 0.28), despite an acceptable safety profile. In archival tumor samples, prostate tumors showed comparatively low expression of key immune biomarkers. DNA damage-response alterations, phosphatase and tensin homolog status and PD-L1 expression levels were similar between hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancers. In planned biomarker analysis, longer progression-free survival was seen with atezolizumab in patients with high PD-L1 IC2/3, CD8 expression and established immune gene signatures. Exploratory analysis linked progression-free survival in the atezolizumab arm with immune genes such as CXCL9 and TAP1, together with other potentially relevant biomarkers including phosphatase and tensin homolog alterations. Together these data indicate that the expected biology associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors is present in prostate cancer, albeit in fewer patients. Careful patient selection may be required for immune checkpoint inhibitors to identify subgroups of patients who may benefit from this treatment approach., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Purpose: Although patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma can experience long-term survival with BRAF- and MEK-targeted agents or immune checkpoint inhibitors over 5 years, resistance develops in most patients. There is a distinct lack of pretherapeutic biomarkers to identify which patients are likely to benefit from each therapy type. Most research has focused on the predictive role of T cells in antitumor responses as opposed to B cells., Patients and Methods: We conducted prespecified exploratory biomarker analysis using gene expression profiling and digital pathology in 146 patients with previously untreated BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma from the randomized, phase III COMBI-v trial and treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib who had available tumor specimens from screening., Results: Baseline cell-cycle gene expression signature was associated with progression-free survival ( P = 0.007). Patients with high T-cell/low B-cell gene signatures had improved median overall survival (not reached [95% confidence interval (CI), 33.8 months-not reached]) compared with patients with high T-cell/high B-cell signatures (19.1 months; 95% CI, 13.4-38.6 months). Patients with high B-cell signatures had high B-cell infiltration into the tumor compartment, corresponding with decreased MAPK activity and increased expression of immunosuppressive markers., Conclusions: B cells may serve as a potential biomarker to predict clinical outcome in patients with advanced melanoma treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib. As separate studies have shown an opposite effect for B-cell levels and response to immunotherapy, B cells may serve as a potential biomarker to facilitate treatment selection. Further validation in a larger patient cohort is needed., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Patients who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors., Methods: We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively., Results: A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years., Conclusions: First-line treatment with dabrafenib plus trametinib led to long-term benefit in approximately one third of the patients who had unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Rilotumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the ligand of the MET receptor, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine, and to assess potential biomarkers, in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma., Methods: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was done at 152 centres in 27 countries. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, MET-positive tumours (≥25% of tumour cells with membrane staining of ≥1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemic therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computerised voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg intravenously or placebo in combination with open-label chemotherapy (epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 intravenously; cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 intravenously; capecitabine 625 mg/m 2 orally twice daily) in 21-day cycles for up to ten cycles. After completion of chemotherapy, patients continued to receive rilotumumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression, intolerability, withdrawal of consent, or study termination. Randomisation was stratified by disease extent and ECOG performance status. Both patients and physicians were masked to study treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01697072., Findings: Between Nov 7, 2012, and Nov 21, 2014, 609 patients were randomly assigned to rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (rilotumumab group; n=304) or placebo plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (placebo group; n=305). Study treatment was stopped early after an independent data monitoring committee found a higher number of deaths in the rilotumumab group than in the placebo group; all patients in the rilotumumab group subsequently discontinued all study treatment. Median follow-up was 7·7 months (IQR 3·6-12·0) for patients in the rilotumumab group and 9·4 months (5·3-13·1) for patients in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 7·7-10·2) in the rilotumumab group compared with 10·7 months (9·6-12·4) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·10-1·63; p=0·003). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the rilotumumab and placebo groups were neutropenia (86 [29%] of 298 patients vs 97 [32%] of 299 patients), anaemia (37 [12%] vs 43 [14%]), and fatigue (30 [10%] vs 35 [12%]). The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the rilotumumab and placebo groups (142 [48%] vs 149 [50%]). More deaths due to adverse events occurred in the rilotumumab group than the placebo group (42 [14%] vs 31 [10%]). In the rilotumumab group, 33 (11%) of 298 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and nine (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. In the placebo group, 23 (8%) of 299 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and eight (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression., Interpretation: Ligand-blocking inhibition of the MET pathway with rilotumumab is not effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma., Funding: Amgen., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Understanding predictors of long-term benefit with currently available melanoma therapies is the key for optimising individualised treatments. A prior pooled analysis of dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T)-randomised trials (median follow-up, 20.0 months) identified baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and number of organ sites with metastasis as predictive factors for progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival. However, longer-term follow-up analyses are needed to confirm which patients treated with D + T can achieve maximum benefit., Methods: Three-year landmark data were retrospectively pooled for D + T patients in phase 3 trials (COMBI-d [NCT01584648]; COMBI-v [NCT01597908]). Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed prognostic values of predefined baseline factors; regression tree analysis determined hierarchy and interactions between variables., Results: Long-term pooled outcomes were consistent with individual trial results (N = 563; 3-year PFS, 23%; 3-year OS, 44%). Baseline LDH level and number of organ sites remained strongly associated with and/or predictive of PFS and OS. In addition, baseline sum of lesion diameters (SLD) was identified as a predictor for progression. In the most favourable prognostic group (normal LDH, SLD <66 mm, <3 organ sites; n = 183/563 [33%]), 3-year PFS was 42%. Baseline number of organ sites was also predictive of outcomes in patients with PFS ≥ 6 months., Conclusion: Using the largest phase 3 data set available for BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapy in melanoma, these results demonstrate that durable responses lasting ≥3 years are possible in subsets of patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving D + T. Although the best predictive model evolved with longer follow-up, factors predicting clinical outcomes with the combination remained consistent with previous analyses., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Lapatinib plus capecitabine (lap+cap) is approved as treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), who have progressed on prior trastuzumab in the metastatic setting. We previously reported progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety results from this open-label, multicentre, phase II study (VITAL; NCT01013740) conducted in women with HER2 positive MBC, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lap plus vinorelbine (lap+vin), an important chemotherapy option for MBC, compared with lap+cap. In total, 112 patients were randomised 2:1 to treatment with lap+vin (N = 75) or lap+cap (N = 37). Results showed that the median PFS (primary endpoint) and OS (secondary endpoint) post-randomisation were comparable between treatment arms, with no new safety signals detected. Here, we assessed the final OS in this study at 40 months post-randomisation. At the time of final analyses, 24 (32%) patients were ongoing in the lap+vin arm, compared with 14 (38%) patients in the lap+cap arm (92% in both arms had discontinued treatment). Median OS in the lap+vin arm was 23.3 months (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 18.5, 31.1), compared with 20.3 months (95% CI: 16.4, 31.8) in the lap+cap arm. The median follow-up in the lap+vin arm was 18.86 months (95% CI: 10.68, 26.02), compared with 19.38 (95% CI: 25.56) months in the lap+cap arm. Similar rates of death (56-57%) were observed in both arms. The final OS was consistent with the previously reported data and suggest that lap+vin offers an effective treatment option for women with HER2-positive MBC., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the COMBI-v trial, patients with previously untreated BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma who were treated with the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib had significantly longer overall and progression-free survival than those treated with vemurafenib alone. Here, we present the effects of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), an exploratory endpoint in the COMBI-v study., Methods: COMBI-v was an open-label, randomised phase 3 study in which 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF Val600 mutation were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice-daily) and trametinib (2 mg once-daily) or vemurafenib monotherapy (960 mg twice-daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. In this pre-specified exploratory analysis, we prospectively assessed HRQoL in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D), and Melanoma Subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), completed at baseline, during study treatment, at disease progression, and after progression. We used a mixed-model, repeated measures ANCOVA to assess differences in mean scores between groups with baseline score as covariate; all p-values are descriptive. The COMBI-v trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01597908, and is ongoing for the primary endpoint, but is not recruiting patients., Findings: From June 4, 2012, to Oct 7, 2013, 1645 patients at 193 centres worldwide were screened for eligibility, and 704 patients were randomly assigned to dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=352) or vemurafenib (n=352). Questionnaire completion rates for both groups were high (>95% at baseline, >80% at follow-up assessments, and >70% at disease progression) with similar HRQoL and symptom scores reported at baseline in both treatment groups for all questionnaires. Differences in mean scores between treatment groups were significant and clinically meaningful in favour of the combination compared with vemurafenib monotherapy for most domains across all three questionnaires during study treatment and at disease progression, including EORTC QLQ-C30 global health (7·92, 7·62, 6·86, 7·47, 5·16, 7·56, and 7·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·005 at week 40), EORTC QLQ-C30 pain (-13·20, -8·05, -8·82, -12·69, -12·46, -11·41, and -10·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001), EQ-5D thermometer scores (7·96, 8·05, 6·83, 11·53, 7·41, 9·08, and 10·51 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·006 at week 32), and FACT-M Melanoma Subscale score (3·62, 2·93, 2·45, 3·39, 2·85, 3·00, and 3·68 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001)., Interpretation: From the patient's perspective, which integrates not only survival advantage but also disease-associated and adverse-event-associated symptoms, treatment with the combination of a BRAF inhibitor plus a MEK inhibitor (dabrafenib plus trametinib) adds a clear benefit over monotherapy with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and supports the combination therapy as standard of care in this population., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: CEREBEL compared the incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer receiving lapatinib-capecitabine or trastuzumab-capecitabine., Patients and Methods: Patients without baseline CNS metastases were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive lapatinib-capecitabine (lapatinib 1,250 mg per day; capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 to 14 every 21 days) or trastuzumab-capecitabine (trastuzumab loading dose of 8 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks; capecitabine 2,500 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 to 14 every 21 days). The primary end point was incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: The study was terminated early with 540 enrolled patients (271 received lapatinib-capecitabine, and 269 received trastuzumab-capecitabine). Incidence of CNS metastases as first site of relapse was 3% (eight of 251 patients) for lapatinib-capecitabine and 5% (12 of 250 patients) for trastuzumab-capecitabine (treatment differences, -1.6%; 95% CI, -2% to 5%; P = .360). PFS and OS were longer with trastuzumab-capecitabine versus lapatinib-capecitabine (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.64; HR for OS, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.64). Serious adverse events were reported in 13% (34 of 269 patients) and 17% (45 of 267 patients) of patients in the lapatinib-capecitabine and trastuzumab-capecitabine arms, respectively., Conclusion: CEREBEL is inconclusive for the primary end point, and no difference was detected between lapatinb-capecitabine and trastuzumab-capecitabine for the incidence of CNS metastases. A better outcome was observed with trastuzumab-capecitabine in the overall population. However, lapatinib-capecitabine efficacy may have been affected by previous exposure to a trastuzumab regimen and/or when treatment was given as first- or second-line therapy in the metastatic setting., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Preventing chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia could avoid chemotherapy dose reductions and delays. The safety and maximum tolerated dose of eltrombopag, an oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist, with gemcitabine-based therapy was evaluated. Patients with advanced solid tumors and platelets ≤300 × 10(9) /L receiving gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin (Group A) or gemcitabine monotherapy (Group B) were randomized 3:1 to receive eltrombopag or placebo at a starting dose of 100 mg daily administered on days -5 to -1 and days 2-6 starting from cycle 2 of treatment. Nineteen patients (Group A, n = 9; Group B, n = 10) received eltrombopag 100 mg and seven (Group A, n = 3; Group B, n = 4) received matching placebo. Nine eltrombopag patients in Group A and eight in Group B had 38 and 54 occurrences of platelet counts ≥400 × 10(9) /L, respectively. Mean platelet nadirs across cycles 2-6 were 115 × 10(9) /L and 143 × 10(9) /L for eltrombopag-treated patients versus 53 × 10(9) /L and 103 × 10(9) /L for placebo-treated patients in Groups A and B, respectively. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported for eltrombopag; however, due to several occurrences of thrombocytosis, a decision was made not to dose-escalate eltrombopag to >100 mg daily. In Groups A and B, 14% of eltrombopag versus 50% of placebo patients required chemotherapy dose reductions and/or delays for any reason across cycles 3-6. Eltrombopag 100 mg once daily administered 5 days before and after day 1 of chemotherapy was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile, and will be further tested in a phase II trial. Fewer patients receiving eltrombopag required chemotherapy dose delays and/or reductions compared with those receiving placebo., (© 2014 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown efficacy as monotherapies in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Combining dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, enhanced antitumor activity in this population of patients., Methods: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) or vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: At the preplanned interim overall survival analysis, which was performed after 77% of the total number of expected events occurred, the overall survival rate at 12 months was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67 to 77) in the combination-therapy group and 65% (95% CI, 59 to 70) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89; P=0.005). The prespecified interim stopping boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped for efficacy in July 2014. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the combination-therapy group and 7.3 months in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-therapy group and 51% in the vemurafenib group (P<0.001). Rates of severe adverse events and study-drug discontinuations were similar in the two groups. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma occurred in 1% of patients in the combination-therapy group and 18% of those in the vemurafenib group., Conclusions: Dabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).