Search

Purpose: Autophagy is a resistance mechanism to BRAF/MEK inhibition in BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. Here we used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to inhibit autophagy in combination with dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg every day (D+T)., Patients and Methods: We conducted a phase I/II clinical trial in four centers of HCQ + D+T in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. The primary objectives were the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and the one-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate of >53%., Results: Thirty-four patients were evaluable for one-year PFS rate. Patient demographics were as follows: elevated lactate dehydrogenase: 47%; stage IV M1c/M1d: 52%; prior immunotherapy: 50%. In phase I, there was no dose-limiting toxicity. HCQ 600 mg orally twice daily with D+T was the RP2D. The one-year PFS rate was 48.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31.0%-65.5%], median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 5.4-16.9 months), and response rate (RR) was 85% (95% CI, 64%-95%). The complete RR was 41% and median overall survival (OS) was 26.5 months. In a patient with elevated LDH (n = 16), the RR was 88% and median PFS and OS were 7.3 and 22 months, respectively., Conclusions: HCQ + D+T was well tolerated and produced a high RR but did not meet criteria for success for the one-year PFS rate. There was a high proportion of patients with pretreated and elevated LDH, an increasingly common demographic in patients receiving targeted therapy. In this difficult-to-treat population, the RR and PFS were encouraging. A randomized trial of D+T + HCQ or placebo in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma with elevated LDH and previous immunotherapy is being conducted., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Importance: An increasing number of cutaneous adverse reactions resulting from use of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been described, but with relatively little focus to date on the timing of these reactions., Objective: To determine the timing of cutaneous drug reactions after initiation of PD-1 inhibitor therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational study included patients referred to an academic dermatology clinic by an oncologist from January 1, 2014, through February 28, 2018, with at least 1 skin biopsy specimen of a skin reaction associated with PD-1 inhibitor use. Participants were included if they had a biopsy-proven cutaneous reaction in response to a PD-1 inhibitor used alone or in combination with ipilimumab., Exposures: All patients included in this study received pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or nivolumab with ipilimumab as immunotherapy for cancer., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome measure was time to onset of biopsy-proven cutaneous reactions that occurred during or after use of pembrolizumab or nivolumab., Results: A total of 17 patients (12 men, 5 women; mean [SD] age, 68.6 [11.1] years) were identified who presented with cutaneous adverse reactions associated with PD-1 inhibitor therapy; these reactions included lichenoid dermatitis, bullous pemphigoid, erythema multiforme, eczema, lupus, and sarcoidosis. Twelve patients presented with reactions at least 3 months after beginning pembrolizumab or nivolumab therapy. The skin reactions presented a median (range) of 4.2 months (0.5-38.0 months) after drug initiation. In 5 cases, the cutaneous adverse reactions attributed to the PD-1 inhibitor therapy developed after the drug therapy was terminated., Conclusions and Relevance: Diverse cutaneous adverse reactions secondary to PD-1 inhibitor use may present with delayed onsets and even after discontinuation of therapy. Dermatologists should be aware of the potential for delayed presentations of cutaneous adverse reactions.

Purpose To report 5-year landmark analysis efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma (MM) who received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (D) and MEK inhibitor trametinib (T) combination therapy versus D monotherapy in the randomized phase II BRF113220 study part C. Patients and Methods BRAF inhibitor-naive patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive D 150 mg twice a day, D 150 mg twice a day plus T 1 mg once daily, or D 150 mg twice a day plus T 2 mg once daily (D + T 150/2). Patients who received D monotherapy could cross over to D + T 150/2 postprogression. Efficacy and safety were analyzed 4 and 5 years after initiation in patients with ≥ 5 years of follow-up. Results As of October 13, 2016, 18 patients who received D + T 150/2 remained in the study (13 [24%] of 54 enrolled at this dose plus five [11%] of 45 initially administered D who crossed over to D + T). With D + T 150/2, overall survival (OS; 4 years, 30%; 5 years, 28%) and progression-free survival (4 and 5 years, both 13%) appeared to stabilize with extended follow-up. Increased OS was observed in patients who received D + T with baseline normal lactate dehydrogenase (5 years, 45%) and normal lactate dehydrogenase with fewer than three organ sites with metastasis (5 years, 51%). With extended follow-up, one additional patient who received D + T 150/2 improved from a partial to a complete response. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion This 5-year analysis represents the longest follow-up to date with BRAF + MEK inhibitor combination therapy in BRAF V600-mutant MM. Consistent with trends observed in landmark analyses with shorter follow-up, this therapy elicits durable plateaus of long-term OS and progression-free survival that last ≥ 5 years in some patients with MM.

Purpose: The objectives of the study were to evaluate the safety of daily oral PX-866 in combination with twice daily vemurafenib and to identify potential predictive biomarkers for this novel combination. Experimental Design: We conducted a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation study in patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant solid tumors. PX-866 was administered on a continuous schedule in combination with vemurafenib. Patients underwent a baseline and on-treatment biopsy after 1-week of PX-866 monotherapy for biomarker assessment. Results: Twenty-four patients were enrolled. The most common treatment-related adverse events were gastrointestinal side effects. One dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of grade 3 rash and one DLT of grade 3 pancreatitis were observed in cohort 2 (PX-866 6 mg daily; vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily) and cohort 3 (PX-866 8 mg daily; vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily), respectively. Of 23 response-evaluable patients, seven had confirmed partial responses (PR), 10 had stable disease, and six had disease progression. Decreases in intratumoral pAKT expression were observed following treatment with PX-866. Patients who achieved PRs had higher rates of PTEN loss by IHC (80% vs. 58%) and pathogenic PTEN mutations and/or deletions (57% vs. 25%). Two patients with durable PRs had an increase in intratumoral CD8 + T-cell infiltration following treatment with PX-866. Conclusions: PX-866 was well tolerated at its maximum tolerated single-agent dose when given in combination with a modified dose of vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily). Response to treatment appeared to be associated with PTEN loss and treatment with PX-866 seemed to increase CD8 + T-cell infiltration in some patients. Clin Cancer Res; 24(1); 22-32. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy., Methods: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients., Findings: Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65)., Interpretation: Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To report the overall survival (OS) and clinical characteristics of BRAF inhibitor-naive long-term responders and survivors treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib in a phase I and II study of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma., Methods: BRAF inhibitor-naive patients treated with dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg daily (the 150/2 group) from the non-randomly assigned (part B) and randomly assigned (part C) cohorts of the study were analyzed for progression-free and OS separately. Baseline characteristics and factors on treatment were analyzed for associations with durable responses and OS., Results: For BRAF inhibitor-naive patients in the 150/2 groups (n = 78), the progression-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 44%, 22%, and 18%, respectively, for part B (n = 24) and 41%, 25%, and 21%, respectively, for part C (n = 54). Median OS was 27.4 months in part B and 25 months in part C. OS at 1, 2, and 3 years was 72%, 60%, and 47%, respectively, for part B and 80%, 51%, and 38%, respectively, for part C. Prolonged survival was associated with metastases in fewer than three organ sites and lower baseline lactate dehydrogenase. OS at 3 years was 62% in patients with normal baseline lactate dehydrogenase and 63% in patients with a complete response., Conclusion: Dabrafenib plus trametinib results in a median OS of more than 2 years in BRAF inhibitor-naive patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma, and approximately 20% were progression free at 3 years. Durable responses occurred in patients with good prognostic features at baseline, which may be predictive., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Copy number alterations have been shown to be involved in melanoma pathogenesis. The randomized phase III clinical trial E2603: carboplatin, paclitaxel, ± sorafenib (CP vs. CPS) offers a large collection of tumor samples to evaluate association of somatic mutations, genomic alterations, and clinical outcomes, prior to current FDA-approved therapies., Experimental Design: Copy number and mutational analysis on 119 pretreatment samples was performed., Results: CPS therapy was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CP in patients with tumors with RAF1 (cRAF) gene copy gains (HR, 0.372; P = 0.025) or CCND1 gene copy gains (HR, 0.45; P = 0.035). CPS therapy was associated with improved overall survival (OS) compared with CP in patients with tumors with KRAS gene copy gains (HR, 0.25; P = 0.035). BRAF gene copy gain and MET amplification were more common in samples with V600K versus V600E mutations (P < 0.001), which was validated in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset., Conclusions: We observed improved treatment response with CPS in patients with melanoma whose tumors have RAF1 (cRAF), KRAS, or CCND1 amplification, all of which can be attributed to sorafenib targeting CRAF. These genomic alterations should be incorporated in future studies for evaluation as biomarkers., (©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Preclinical and early clinical studies have demonstrated that initial therapy with combined BRAF and MEK inhibition is more effective in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma than single-agent BRAF inhibitors. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib in patients who had received prior BRAF inhibitor treatment., Patients and Methods: In this open-label phase I/II study, we evaluated the pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib. Here, we report patients treated with combination therapy after disease progression with BRAF inhibitor treatment administered before study enrollment (part B; n = 26) or after cross-over at progression with dabrafenib monotherapy (part C; n = 45)., Results: In parts B and C, confirmed objective response rates (ORR) were 15% (95% CI, 4% to 35%) and 13% (95% CI, 5% to 27%), respectively; an additional 50% and 44% experienced stable disease ≥ 8 weeks, respectively. In part C, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2 to 4), and median overall survival was 11.8 months (95% CI, 8 to 25) from cross-over. Patients who previously received dabrafenib ≥ 6 months had superior outcomes with the combination compared with those treated < 6 months; median PFS was 3.9 (95% CI, 3 to 7) versus 1.8 months (95% CI, 2 to 4; hazard ratio, 0.49; P = .02), and ORR was 26% (95% CI, 10% to 48%) versus 0% (95% CI, 0% to 15%)., Conclusion: Dabrafenib plus trametinib has modest clinical efficacy in patients with BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma. This regimen may be a therapeutic strategy for patients who previously benefited from BRAF inhibitor monotherapy ≥ 6 months but demonstrates minimal efficacy after rapid progression with BRAF inhibitor therapy., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Blocking autophagy with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) augments cell death associated with alkylating chemotherapy in preclinical models. This phase I study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, preliminary activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of HCQ in combination with dose-intense temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Forty patients (73% metastatic melanoma) were treated with oral HCQ 200 to 1200 mg daily with dose-intense oral TMZ 150 mg/m (2) daily for 7/14 d. This combination was well tolerated with no recurrent dose-limiting toxicities observed. An MTD was not reached for HCQ and the recommended phase II dose was HCQ 600 mg twice daily combined with dose-intense TMZ. Common toxicities included grade 2 fatigue (55%), anorexia (28%), nausea (48%), constipation (20%), and diarrhea (20%). Partial responses and stable disease were observed in 3/22 (14%) and 6/22 (27%) patients with metastatic melanoma. In the final dose cohort 2/6 patients with refractory BRAF wild-type melanoma had a near complete response, and prolonged stable disease, respectively. A significant accumulation in autophagic vacuoles (AV) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was observed in response to combined therapy. Population pharmacokinetics (PK) modeling, individual PK simulations, and PK-pharmacodynamics (PD) analysis identified a threshold HCQ peak concentration that predicts therapy-associated AV accumulation. This study indicates that the combination of high-dose HCQ and dose-intense TMZ is safe and tolerable, and is associated with autophagy modulation in patients. Prolonged stable disease and responses suggest antitumor activity in melanoma patients, warranting further studies of this combination, or combinations of more potent autophagy inhibitors and chemotherapy in melanoma.

Purpose: Sorafenib is an inhibitor of VEGF receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), and RAF kinases, amongst others. We assessed the association of somatic mutations with clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma treated on E2603, comparing treatment with carboplatin, paclitaxel ± sorafenib (CP vs., Cps) Experimental Design: Pretreatment tumor samples from 179 unique individuals enrolled on E2603 were analyzed. Genotyping was performed using a custom iPlex panel interrogating 74 mutations in 13 genes. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher exact test, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards models. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods., Results: BRAF and NRAS mutations were found at frequencies consistent with other metastatic melanoma cohorts. BRAF-mutant melanoma was associated with worse performance status, increased number of disease sites, and younger age at diagnosis. NRAS-mutant melanoma was associated with better performance status, fewer sites of disease, and female gender. BRAF and NRAS mutations were not significantly predictive of response or survival when treated with CPS versus CP. However, patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma trended toward a worse response and PFS on CP than those with BRAF-mutant or WT/WT melanoma, an association that was reversed for this group on the CPS arm., Conclusions: This study of somatic mutations in melanoma is the last prospectively collected phase III clinical trial population before the era of BRAF-targeted therapy. A trend toward improved clinical response in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma treated with CPS was observed, possibly due to the effect of sorafenib on CRAF., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether carboplatin, paclitaxel, and sorafenib (CPS) improve overall survival (OS) compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic melanoma., Patients and Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study, all patients received carboplatin at area under the [concentration-time] curve 6 and paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 21 days with random assignment to sorafenib 400 mg orally twice per day on days 2 through 19 every 21 days or placebo. The primary end point was OS, and secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective tumor response, and toxicity., Results: In all, 823 patients were enrolled over 34 months. At final analysis, the median OS was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.8 to 12.2 months) for CP and 11.1 months (95% CI, 10.3 to 12.3 months) for CPS; the difference in the OS distribution was not statistically significant by the stratified log-rank test, stratified on American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and prior therapy (P = .878). Median progression-free survival was 4.9 months for CPS and 4.2 months for CP (P = .092, stratified log-rank test). Response rate was 20% for CPS and 18% for CP (P = .427). More patients on the CPS arm had grade 3 or higher toxicities (84% v 78%; P = .027), with increased rash, hand-foot syndrome, and thrombocytopenia accounting for most of the difference., Conclusion: Sorafenib does not improve OS when given in combination with CP for chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic melanoma. This study establishes benchmark end points for the CP regimen in first-line therapy of metastatic melanoma.

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.).

Purpose: This study evaluated the safety, maximum tolerated dose, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with solid tumors., Patients and Methods: Thirty-nine patients with advanced cancer (24 with melanoma) received oral sorafenib 100, 200, or 400 mg twice daily on days 2 to 19 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received carboplatin corresponding to AUC6 and 225 mg/m(2) paclitaxel on day 1. Pharmacokinetic analyses were done for sorafenib on days 2 and 19 of cycle 1 and for paclitaxel on day 1 of cycles 1 and 2. Pretreatment tumor samples from 17 melanoma patients were analyzed for BRAF mutations., Results: Sorafenib was well tolerated at the doses evaluated. The most frequent severe adverse events were hematologic toxicities (grade 3 or 4 in 33 patients, 85%). Twenty-seven (69%) patients had sorafenib-related adverse events, the most frequent of which were dermatologic events (26 patients, 67%). Exposure to paclitaxel was not altered by intervening treatment with sorafenib. Treatment with sorafenib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin resulted in one complete response and nine partial responses, all among patients with melanoma. There was no correlation between BRAF mutational status and treatment responses in patients with melanoma., Conclusions: The recommended phase II doses are oral 400 mg twice daily sorafenib, carboplatin at an AUC6 dose, and 225 mg/m(2) paclitaxel. The tumor responses observed with this combined regimen in patients with melanoma warrant further investigation.