Search

Background: The impact of the order of treatment with checkpoint inhibitors or BRAF/MEK inhibitors on the development of brain metastases in patients with metastatic unresectable BRAF V600-mutant melanoma is unknown. The SECOMBIT trial examined the impact of the order of receipt of these treatments in such patients., Methods: In this three-arm trial, we reviewed patients without brain metastases who received the BRAF/MEK inhibitors encorafenib and binimetinib until they had progressive disease followed by the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab (arm A); or treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by encorafenib and binimetinib (arm B); or treatment with encorafenib and binimetinib for 8 weeks followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by retreatment with encorafenib arm binimetinib (arm C)., Results: Brain metastases were discovered during the trial in 23/69 patients in arm A, 11/69 in arm B, and 9/68 in arm C. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the 60-month brain metastases-free survival rates were 56% for arm A, 80% for arm B (hazard ratio [HR] vs. A: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.58), and 85% for arm C (HR vs. A: 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.76)., Conclusions: In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, the treatment sequence of immune checkpoint inhibition followed by BRAF/MEK inhibitors was associated with longer periods of new brain metastases-free survival than the reverse sequence. A regimen in which immune checkpoint inhibition was sandwiched between BRAF/MEK inhibition also appeared to be protective against brain metastases. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02631447.).

Background: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff)., Methods: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed., Results: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms., Conclusions: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dirk Schadendorf. Honoraria: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Array BioPharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, Regeneron, 4SC, Sanofi/Regeneron, NeraCare GmbH, Sun Pharma, Inflarx GmbH, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo Japan, LabCorp, Nektar, Replimune. Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, Nektar. Speakers’ Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck KGaA. Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Array BioPharma/Pfizer (Inst), Amgen (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron. Reinhard Dummer. Honoraria: Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, CatalYm, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator Bioscience, MaxiVAX, touchIME, T3 Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, CatalYm, Second Genome, Alligator Bioscience, touchIME, MaxiVAX, Regeneron, Pfizer, T3 Pharmaceuticals. Research Funding: Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), MSD (Inst), Amgen (Inst). Keith T. Flaherty. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, Strata Oncology, PIC Therapeutics, Apricity Health, Oncoceutics, FogPharma, Tvardi Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Kinnate Biopharma, Scorpion Therapeutics, ALX Oncology, xCures, Monopteros Therapeutics, Vibliome Therapeutics, Transcode Therapeutics, Soley Therapeutics, Nextech Invest. Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Lilly, Oncoceutics, Tvardi Therapeutics, Takeda, Debiopharm Group. Caroline Robert. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Ribonexus. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer. Research Funding: Novartis (Inst). Ana Arance. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Merck, Sanofi. Speakers’ Bureau: Pierre Fabre, Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck, Sanofi Research Funding: Pierre Fabre (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD (Inst), Merck (Inst), Sanofi (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. Jan Willem B. de Groot. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier. Claus Garbe. Honoraria: CeCaVa, MSD Oncology, NeraCare GmbH, Philogen. Consulting or Advisory Role: CeCaVa, MSD Oncology, NeraCare GmbH, Philogen. Helen J. Gogas. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Speakers’ Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Steering Committee Member: Amgen, Replimune. Research Funding: Amgen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Iovance (Inst), Lilly (Inst), MSD (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst). Ralf Gutzmer. Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Amgen, Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, Immunocore. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Almirall Hermal GmbH, 4SC, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma, Sanofi/Regeneron, Immunocore, Delcath. Research Funding: Amgen (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Sun Pharma (Inst), Sanofi/Regeneron (Inst), Kyowa Kirin (Inst), Almirall Hermal GmbH (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim. Ivana Krajsová. No disclosures or conflicts of interest to report. Gabriella Liszkay. Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, MSD, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Sanofi, Pfizer. Speakers’ Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology (Inst), Sanofi. Research Funding: Roche, Novartis (Inst), Incyte Corporation (Inst). Carmen Loquai. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD (Inst), BioNTech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), Almirall Hermal GmbH (Inst), Sun Pharma (Inst), Merck (Inst), Roche (Inst), Kyowa Kirin International (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD (Inst), BioNTech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), Almirall Hermal GmbH (Inst), Sun Pharma (Inst), Merck (Inst), Roche (Inst), Kyowa Kirin International (Inst). Mario Mandalà. Honoraria: MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Aventis, Bristol Myers Squibb/Sanofi. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. Research Funding: Novartis (Inst). Naoya Yamazaki. Consulting or Advisory Role: Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharma, MSD. Speakers’ Bureau: Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb Japan, Novartis, MSD. Research Funding: Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb Japan (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Astellas Amgen BioPharma (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Takara Bio (Inst). Paola Queirolo. Consulting or Advisory Role: Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sun Pharma, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck Serono. Carolin Guenzel. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer. Honoraria: Pfizer. Anna Polli. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer. Honoraria: Pfizer. Mahgull Thakur. Employment: Formerly Pfizer. Alessandra di Pietro. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer. Honoraria: Pfizer. Paolo A. Ascierto. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: PrimeVAX. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seagen, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health. Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Array BioPharma (Inst), Sanofi (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The treatment strategy for BRAF-mutated melanoma remains unsatisfactory, although the advent of immune checkpoint inhibition has improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma. This article reports current evidence on the efficacy and safety of sequential immunotherapy with targeted therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. It discusses criteria for the use of available options in clinical practice., Recent Findings: Targeted therapy provides rapid disease control in a relatively high proportion of patients, although the development of secondary resistance limits the duration of responses; in contrast, immunotherapy may induce slow but more durable responses in a subset of patients. Therefore, the identification of a combination strategy for the use of these therapies seems a promising perspective. Currently, inconsistent data have been obtained, but most studies indicate that the administration of BRAFi/MEKi prior to immune checkpoint inhibitors appears to reduce the efficacy of immunotherapy. On the contrary, several clinical and real-life studies suggest that frontline immunotherapy with subsequent targeted therapy may be associated with better tumor control than immunotherapy alone. Larger clinical studies are ongoing to confirm the efficacy and safety of this sequencing strategy for treating BRAF-mutated melanoma with immunotherapy followed by targeted therapy., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600 -mutant metastatic melanoma., Methods: SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication., Results: A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged., Conclusion: Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma.

Background: Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis., Methods: The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672., Findings: Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43-63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1-45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6-44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9-not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0-34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib., Interpretation: Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PAA reports grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer/Array, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Pfizer/Array, Lunaphore, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health, ValoTx, and Replimmune; travel support from Pfizer; and advisory board member for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Immunocore, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncosec, Nouscom, Seagen, and iTeos. HG reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi/Regeneron; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Novartis, and Iovance Biotherapeutics; travel, accommodation, and expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, and Pfizer; and a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi/Regeneron. CR reports consulting fees from Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; and payment or honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. KL reports honoraria from Array Biopharma and Iovance Biotherapeutics; a consulting or advisory role for Array Biopharma, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Nektar, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding from Alkermes, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Kartos Therapeutics, Merck, Nektar, Neon Therapeutics, OncoSec, Regeneron, Replimune, Roche/Genentech, Seagen, Senhwa Biosciences, and Ultimovacs; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Alkermes, Merck, Neon Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Roche/Genentech. SP reports honoraria from Biocad, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; speakers bureau for Biocad, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and research funding from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Biocad. RPP reports speakers bureau for Roche and Bristol Myers Squibb and research funding from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, and AstraZeneca. TE reports a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Sanofi/Regeneron, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre and speakers bureau for Almirall Hermal. PR reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Merck; speaker's bureau for Pfizer, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; consulting fee from Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Philogen; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Orphan Europe and Pierre Fabre. LD reports honoraria from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis and research funding from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Amgen. NZ reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, MSD Oncology, and AstraZeneca/Merck; consulting fees from Roche, MSD Oncology, Merck; and travel and accommodation expenses from MSD Oncology and Roche. JS reports a consultant or advisory role for Merck Sharp & Dohme and Bristol Myers Squibb. YY and IC report employment with Genentech and stock or other ownership with Roche/Genentech. CH and CX report employment with Roche. LK reports employment and ownership non-voting shares for Roche. GAM reports research funding to his institution from Genentech/Roche and Bristol Myers Squibb. RG reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Merck Serono, Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Sun Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Immunocore; a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Almirall Hermal, 4SC, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, and Immunocore; research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Merck Serono, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Sun Pharma. DS declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phase III IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAF V600 -mutated advanced melanoma. We report exploratory biomarker analyses to optimize targeting of patients who are more likely to benefit from triplet combination therapy., Patients and Methods: Five hundred fourteen patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 256) or control (n = 258). Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by key biomarkers, including programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) gene signature. Exploratory recursive partitioning analysis was then used to model associations between PFS and baseline covariates, including key biomarkers., Results: PFS benefit for atezolizumab versus control was greater in patients with high TMB [≥10 mutations/Mb; hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.02; P = 0.067] versus low TMB (<10 mutations/Mb; HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65-1.30; P = 0.64) and similar between patients with strong IFN-γ (≥median; HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.06) versus weak IFN-γ (

Objectives: Parts 4 and 5 of the phase 1/2 KEYNOTE-022 study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and efficacy of pembrolizumab plus trametinib in solid tumours and BRAF wild-type melanoma., Patients and Methods: Patients received intermittent or concurrent dosing of pembrolizumab plus trametinib. Concurrent dosing was 2 or 4 weeks of trametinib run-in followed by concurrent pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (Q3W) plus trametinib once daily (QD). Intermittent dosing was 2 weeks of trametinib run-in followed by pembrolizumab plus intermittent trametinib (1 week off/2 weeks on). A 3 + 3 dose escalation was used, followed by dose confirmation., Results: Forty-two patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred at initial dose levels (DL). At subsequent DLs, 10 of 38 evaluable patients had DLTs. For concurrent dosing, MTD was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 1.5 mg QD, with a 2-week trametinib 1.5 mg QD run-in (concurrent DL2a); in concurrent DL2a group, five (31%) patients had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); the objective response rate (ORR) was 0%. ORR was 40% in concurrent DL1 and 0% in concurrent DL2b. For intermittent dosing, MTD was pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W plus trametinib 2 mg QD with a 2-week trametinib 2 mg QD run-in (intermittent DL2); in the intermittent DL2 group, seven (47%) patients had grade 3/4 TRAEs; ORR was 27%. ORR in intermittent DL1 was 33%., Conclusions: MTDs for concurrent and intermittent dosing of pembrolizumab with trametinib were identified. The combination had limited antitumour activity, numerically higher ORR with intermittent versus concurrent dosing, and manageable safety. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT02130466., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M.M. reports serving as a consultant/adviser for Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Alfasigma USA Inc., and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (MSD). M.S.C. reports serving as a consultant/adviser for MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Nektar, Regeneron, Eisai Co., Ltd., QBiotics, and Ideaya and has received honoraria from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. A.M.J. reports consultant/advisory role (recipient: his institution) for Neolukin, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Noxopharm, IQvia, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Eisai; has received research funding to his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Mayne Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, Macrogenics, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Corvus Pharmaceuticals; and stock and other ownership interests in Pricilium Therapeutics. E.M. reports serving as on advisory boards for MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, EMD Serono, and Sanofi. A.R. has received honoraria for consulting from Amgen, Chugai, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi, Vedanta, and Nurix; is a Science Advisory Board member and stockholder in Arcus, Highlight, Compugen, Merus, Rgenix, PACT Pharma, Tango Therapeutics, Apricity, ImaginAb, Isoplexis, Lutris Pharma, MapKure, and 4C Biomed; has previously been a Science Advisory Board member and stockholder in CytomX, Five Prime, RAPT, Advaxis, and Kite-Gilead; and declares institutional research grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb. P.A.A. reports serving as a consultant/advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Array, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, Medimmune, AstraZeneca, Syndax, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai Co., Ltd. and Regeneron; declares research funds from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, and Array; and declares travel support from MSD. W.H.M. declares having received consultant fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Canada Inc., Kirkland, QC, Canada, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, and GlaxoSmithKline. M.O.B. reports serving as a consultant/advisor for MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, and EMD Serono; serving as a Safety Review Board member for Adaptimmune, and GlaxoSmithKline; and receiving support for trials from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Adaptimmune, and Immunocore. P.F.F. reports serving on advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. R.Z. reports serving on advisory boards for Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; and receiving speaker payments from MSD and Bristol Myers Squibb. M.D.V. reports serving as a consultant/advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. E.G. reports holding stocks in and reports receiving payment from Novartis. R.G. is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. S.J.D. is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA and a shareholder in Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. E.C. was an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, at the time of the study. O.H. declares having received speaker fees from Array, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Sanofi Regeneron; having received consulting fees from Adura, Akeso, Amgen, Array, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Nextcure, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Tempus, and Zelluna; and contracted research for his institution from Arcus, Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Array, Bristol Myers Squibb, CytomX, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Incyte, Iovance, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Moderna, Merck Serono, NextCure, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Torque, and Zelluna., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the last decade, immunotherapy and target therapy have revolutionized the prognosis of patients with BRAF-V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. To date, three different combinations of BRAF/MEK inhibitors have been approved for this population, showing comparable efficacy and unique toxicity profiles. Several immune-checkpoint inhibitors, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, are also available options for untreated metastatic melanoma patients. A novel approach has emerged by combining immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents, based on preclinical hints of synergy, prompting clinical results from large randomized trials. Specifically, the triplet of atezolizumab, vemurafenib and cobimetinib has been recently approved by FDA for patients with untreated BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. With a wide variety of available treatment options in this setting, it is paramount to establish criteria to select the most effective and safe frontline tailored approaches, for each patient. Results from ongoing studies are awaited, to maximise the benefits in survival outcomes and quality of life for patients, balancing adverse events and clinical benefit. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current landscape of standard and experimental treatment strategies for the first line treatment of patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma and discuss the best patient-centered tailored strategies in the first-line setting., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The association among pathological response, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma remains unclear. In this study, we pooled data from six clinical trials of anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy or BRAF/MEK targeted therapy. In total, 192 patients were included; 141 received immunotherapy (104, combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab; 37, anti-PD-1 monotherapy), and 51 received targeted therapy. A pathological complete response (pCR) occurred in 40% of patients: 47% with targeted therapy and 33% with immunotherapy (43% combination and 20% monotherapy). pCR correlated with improved RFS (pCR 2-year 89% versus no pCR 50%, P < 0.001) and OS (pCR 2-year OS 95% versus no pCR 83%, P = 0.027). In patients with pCR, near pCR or partial pathological response with immunotherapy, very few relapses were seen (2-year RFS 96%), and, at this writing, no patient has died from melanoma, whereas, even with pCR from targeted therapy, the 2-year RFS was only 79%, and OS was only 91%. Pathological response should be an early surrogate endpoint for clinical trials and a new benchmark for development and approval in melanoma.

Purpose: This open-label, dose-finding phase Ib/II study reports the safety and activity of the first combination use with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) encorafenib plus MEK inhibitor (MEKi) binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant solid tumors., Patients and Methods: In phase I, the recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) were established (primary objective). In phase II, the clinical activity of the combination at the RP2D was assessed (primary objective) in patients with BRAF -mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), BRAFi-treated BRAF -mutant melanoma, and BRAFi-naïve BRAF-mutant melanoma., Results: A total of 126 patients with BRAF- mutant solid tumors were enrolled (phase I: 47 patients; phase II: 79 patients). The RP2D was encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily and pharmacokinetic data suggest that drug exposures of each agent were similar in combination compared with single-agent studies. In the phase II cohorts, confirmed responses were seen in two of 11 (18%) evaluable patients with mCRC, 11 of 26 (42%) evaluable patients with BRAFi-pretreated melanoma, and 28 of 42 (67%) BRAFi-naïve patients with melanoma. The most common grade 3/4 adverse event in phase II was increased alanine aminotransferase., Conclusions: The combination of encorafenib (450 mg) plus binimetinib (45 mg) showed acceptable tolerability and encouraging activity in patients with BRAF V600-mutant tumors, which led to the dose selection for the melanoma COLUMBUS study. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with other approved BRAFi plus MEKi regimens, with several differences, including lower rates of dose-limiting pyrexia, arthralgia, and photosensitivity., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Target therapies based on BRAF and MEK inhibitors (MAPKi) have changed the therapeutic landscape for metastatic melanoma patients bearing mutations in the BRAF kinase. However, the emergence of drug resistance imposes the necessity to conceive novel therapeutic strategies capable to achieve a more durable disease control. In the last years, retrotransposons laying in human genome have been shown to undergo activation during tumorigenesis, where they contribute to genomic instability. Their activation can be efficiently controlled with reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTIs) frequently used in the treatment of AIDS. These drugs have demonstrated anti-proliferative effects in several cancer models, including also metastatic melanoma. However, to our knowledge no previous study investigated the capability of RTIs to mitigate drug resistance to target therapy in BRAF-mutant melanomas. In this short report we show that the non-nucleoside RTI, SPV122 in combination with MAPKi strongly inhibits BRAF-mutant melanoma cell growth, induces apoptosis, and delays the emergence of resistance to target therapy in vitro. Mechanistically, this combination strongly induces DNA double-strand breaks, mitochondrial membrane depolarization and increased ROS levels. Our results shed further light on the molecular activity of RTI in melanoma and pave the way to their use as a novel therapeutic option to improve the efficacy of target therapy. Video Abstract.

Importance: The optimal sequencing of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy for BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma is not well established., Objective: To assess the association of BRAF wild-type (WT) or BRAF V600E/K-mutant status and BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) with or without MEK inhibitor (MEKi) therapy with response to pembrolizumab., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a post hoc subgroup analysis of pooled data from 3 multinational, multisite studies: KEYNOTE-001 (data cutoff September 1, 2017), KEYNOTE-002 (data cutoff May 30, 2018), and KEYNOTE-006 (data cutoff December 4, 2017). Patients included in this analysis were adults with advanced melanoma and known BRAF V600E/K tumor status who had received pembrolizumab., Interventions: Patients received pembrolizumab in dosages of 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: End points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival (OS). Objective response rates, 4-year PFS, and OS rates were compared in the following patient subgroups: BRAF WT vs BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma with vs without previous treatment with BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy., Results: The overall study population (N = 1558) included 944 men (60.6%) and 614 women (39.4%). The mean (SD) age was 60.0 years (14.0). The ORR was 38.3% (596/1558), 4-year PFS rate was 22.0%, and 4-year OS rate was 36.9%. For patients with BRAF WT (n = 1124) and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma (n = 434), ORR was 39.8% (n = 447) and 34.3% (n = 149), 4-year PFS rate was 22.9% and 19.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 37.5% and 35.1%, respectively. Patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who had (n = 271) vs had not (n = 163) previously received BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy had baseline characteristics with worse prognosis; ORR was 28.4% (n = 77) and 44.2% (n = 72), 4-year PFS rate was 15.2% and 27.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 26.9% and 49.3%, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this subgroup analysis support the use of pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced melanoma regardless of BRAF V600E/K mutation status or receipt of prior BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy.

Background: BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations are established treatments for BRAF V600-mutant melanoma based on demonstrated benefits on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Here, we report an updated analysis of the COLUMBUS (COmbined LGX818 [encorafenib] Used with MEK162 [binimetinib] in BRAF mutant Unresectable Skin cancer) trial with long-term follow-up., Methods: In part 1 of the COLUMBUS trial, 577 patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, untreated or progressed after first-line immunotherapy, were randomised 1:1:1 to 450 mg of encorafenib QD + 45 mg of binimetinib BID (COMBO450) vs 960 mg of vemurafenib BID (VEM) or 300 mg of encorafenib ENCO QD (ENCO300). An updated analysis was conducted that included PFS, OS, objective response rate, safety and tolerability and analyses of results by prognostic subgroups., Results: At data cutoff, there were 116, 113 and 138 deaths in the COMBO450, ENCO300 and VEM treatment arms, respectively. The median OS was 33.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.4-39.2) for COMBO450, 23.5 months (95% CI, 19.6-33.6) for ENCO300 and 16.9 months (95% CI, 14.0-24.5) for VEM. Compared with VEM, COMBO450 decreased the risk of death by 39% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). The updated median PFS for COMBO450 was 14.9 months (95% CI, 11.0-20.2), ENCO300 was 9.6 months (95% CI, 7.4-14.8) and VEM was 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.9). PFS was longer for COMBO450 vs VEM (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67). Landmark OS and PFS results show consistent results for each year analysed. Subgroups all favoured COMBO450 vs VEM., Conclusions: Updated PFS and OS results for COMBO450 from the COLUMBUS trial demonstrate a long-term benefit in patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutated melanoma., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement P.A.A. served a consulting or advisory role for BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Array, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, Genmab, Newlink Genetics, Medimmune, AstraZeneca, Syndax, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes. P.A.A. received research funds from BMS, Roche-Genentech, Array and received travel fees from MSD. R.D. had intermittent, project-focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dhome (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Catalym outside the submitted work. H.J.G. reports receiving consulting fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Amgen and Pierre Fabre and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche outside the submitted work. K.T.F. served as a member of the Board of Directors for Clovis Oncology*, Strata Oncology*, Vivid Biosciences*, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals ; served as a member of the Corporate Advisory Board for X4 Pharmaceuticals*, PIC Therapeutics*; served as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board for Sanofi, Amgen, Asana, Adaptimmune, Fount *, Aeglea, Array BioPharma, Shattuck Labs *, Tolero, Apricity *, Oncoceutics*, Fog Pharma *, Neon, Tvardi *, served as a consultant Novartis, Genentech, BMS, Merck, Takeda, Verastem, Boston Biomedical, Pierre Fabre, Cell Medica, Debiopharm*; and as a stock shareholder. A.A. has received honoraria from, had a consulting or advisory role with or been a member of the speakers bureau for Novartis, Roche, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and Amgen outside the submitted work and has received travel expenses from the same companies. M.M. has received personal fees from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. G.L. has received consulting and advisory board fees from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amicus, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Novartis outside the submitted work. C.G. has received personal fees and research funding from Novartis and Pierre Fabre during the conduct of the study. C.G. has received personal fees for presentations and consulting or advisory roles from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Philogen, Roche and Sanofi and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Neracare, Roche and Sanofi outside the submitted work. D.S. has received personal fees and patients’ fees from Pierre Fabre and Array BioPharma during the conduct of the study. D.S. has received honoraria and travel expenses from, has a consulting or advisory role with, been a member of the speakers bureau for and received personal fees from, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, LEO Pharma, Roche, Novartis, Hexal, InflaRx, Helsinn, GI Innovation, Immunocore, Sanofi, Neracare, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Incyte, Regeneron, 4SC, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck-EMD, Pfizer, Philogen, Ultimovacs and Sun Pharma, all outside of the submitted work. I.K. is an advisory board member for and has received travel expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Merck Sharp & Dohme during the conduct of the study. R.G. received research support from Pfizer, Johnson&Johnson, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono; received honoraria for lectures from RochePharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, SUN; received honoraria for advice from RochePharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, MSD, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, 4SC, Incyte, SUN; Support for participation in meetings from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, SUN, RochePharma. J.W.B.dG. received personal fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Novartis and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. C.L. reports receiving personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, LEO Pharma, Amgen, Biontech and Sun Pharma outside the submitted work. A.G. is an employee at Pfizer Inc. M.D.P. is an employee at Pfizer Inc. C.R. is a consultant for Pierre Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono and Amgen outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We conducted a retrospective exploratory analysis to evaluate the effects of baseline tumour immune infiltrate on disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes in patients with fully resected stage IIC-IIIC melanoma receiving adjuvant vemurafenib monotherapy or placebo in the BRIM8 study., Patients and Methods: BRIM8 was a phase III, international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive, completely resected melanoma were randomly assigned to oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or matching placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end point was DFS. The association of CD8+ T-cell infiltration and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression with DFS, as measured by immunohistochemistry, was explored retrospectively., Results: Four hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant vemurafenib (n = 250) or placebo (n = 248); tumour samples were available for biomarker analysis for approximately 60% of patients. In the pooled biomarker population, placebo-treated patients with <1% CD8+ T cells in the tumour centre had shorter median DFS than those with ≥1% CD8+ T cells (7.7 versus 47.8 months). DFS benefit from vemurafenib versus placebo was greater in patients with <1% CD8+ T cells [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.92) than in patients with ≥1% CD8+ T cells (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.48-1.22). Likewise, median DFS was shorter among placebo-treated patients with <5% versus ≥5% PD-L1+ immune cells (IC) in the tumour (7.2 versus 47.8 months). A greater DFS benefit with vemurafenib versus placebo was observed in patients with <5% PD-L1+IC (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.24-0.56) than in patients with ≥5% PD-L1+IC (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.58-1.69)., Conclusions: The presence of CD8+ T cells and PD-L1+IC are favourable prognostic factors for DFS. Treatment with adjuvant vemurafenib may overcome the poor DFS prognosis associated with low CD8+ T-cell count or PD-L1 expression. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT01667419., (Copyright © 2019 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous analyses of BREAK-2 and BREAK-3 showed that durable outcomes lasting ≥3 years are achievable with dabrafenib in some patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma (MM); however, additional follow-up is needed to fully characterise the long-term impact of dabrafenib in these patients., Methods: BREAK-2 was a single-arm phase 2 study evaluating dabrafenib in treatment-naive or previously treated BRAF V600E/K-mutant MM. BREAK-3, a randomised (3:1) phase 3 study, assessed dabrafenib versus dacarbazine in previously untreated unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma. Five-year analyses were performed., Results: All BREAK-2 patients (N = 92 [V600E, n = 76; V600K, n = 16]) discontinued treatment by the data cutoff. Median follow-up was 13.0 months. In BRAF V600E patients, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 11% and 20%, respectively. Subsequent immunotherapy was received by 22% of patients. In BREAK-3, median follow-up was 17.0 and 12.0 months in the dabrafenib (n = 187) and dacarbazine (n = 63) arms, respectively. Thirty-seven patients (59%) receiving dacarbazine crossed over to dabrafenib following disease progression as per protocol. Five-year PFS was 12% in the dabrafenib arm; all dacarbazine-arm patients progressed or were censored by 5 years. Dabrafenib improved PFS versus dacarbazine, regardless of baseline lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year OS rates were 24% and 22% in the dabrafenib and dacarbazine arms, respectively. Subsequent therapy in each arm included anti-CTLA-4 (dabrafenib [24%] and dacarbazine [24%]) and/or anti-PD-1 (8% and 2%) treatment. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions and Relevance: These data, representing extended follow-up for dabrafenib monotherapy, demonstrate that durable benefit lasting ≥5 years is achievable in a subset of patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (BREAK-2, NCT01153763; BREAK-3, NCT01227889)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This pooled analysis investigated the prognostic value of depth of response in two cohorts of patients with BRAF V600 -mutated metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib., Methods: The data were pooled from BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7 and coBRIM. Association of depth of response with survival was estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for clinically relevant covariates. Depth of response was analysed in previously identified prognostic subgroups based on disease characteristics and gene signatures., Results: Greater tumour reduction and longer time to maximal response were significantly associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when evaluated as continuous variables. Patients with the deepest responses had long-lasting survival outcomes (median PFS: 14 months; OS: 32 months with vemurafenib; not estimable with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib). Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib improved depth of response versus vemurafenib monotherapy regardless of other prognostic factors, including gene signatures., Conclusions: Greater depth of response was associated with improved survival, supporting its utility as a measure of treatment efficacy in melanoma and further evaluation of its incorporation into existing prognostic models. Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib improved outcomes across quartiles of response regardless of prognostic factors or gene signatures and provided durable survival benefits in patients with deep responses.

Background: Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib., Patients and Methods: Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated., Results: The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event., Conclusion: Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38)., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The treatment of advanced melanoma has changed dramatically in recent years with several new drugs having been approved for the treatment of melanoma since 2011. This review aims to evaluate the role of BRAF-targeted therapy for advanced melanoma in the immunotherapy era., Recent Findings: Currently, in patients with BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma, anti-PD-1 (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) is the main treatment. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) is also an important option for these patients, resulting in a better outcome, but with less favorable toxicity profile. In patients with BRAF mutations, three regimens of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors are now approved (vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, dabrafenib plus trametinib, and encorafenib plus binimetinib), which achieve rapid antitumor responses and a significant survival benefit. In these patients, as well as in BRAF wild-type patients, immunotherapy can be also effective and is regularly used. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy have become the new standards of care, substantially improving survival rates. However, many questions still remain unanswered, such as what is the best first- and second-line treatment and the best treatment sequence. New combinations of drugs, targeted therapy combined with immunotherapy, and sequencing approaches are now underway in many ongoing clinical trials.

Blocking programmed death 1 (PD-1) may enhance the durability of anti-tumor responses that are induced by the combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK 1 . Here we performed a randomized phase 2 trial ( NCT02130466 ), in which patients with treatment-naive BRAF V600E/K -mutant, advanced melanoma received the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib together with the PD-1-blocking antibody pembrolizumab (triplet; n = 60) or placebo (doublet; n = 60). The primary end point of progression-free survival was numerically improved in the triplet group-16.0 months-compared with 10.3 months in the doublet group (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = 0.043); however, the trial did not reach the planned benefit for a statistically significant improvement. Median duration of response was 18.7 months (95% confidence interval, 10.1-22.1) and 12.5 months (95% confidence interval, 6.0-14.1); 59.8 and 27.8% of responses were estimated to have lasted for more than 18 months for triplet and doublet treatment, respectively. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 58.3 and 26.7% of patients treated with triplet and doublet therapies, respectively, which were most commonly fever, increased transaminase levels and rash. One patient who received triplet therapy died of pneumonitis. In summary, triplet therapy with dabrafenib, trametinib and pembrolizumab conferred numerically longer progression-free survival and duration of response with a higher rate of grade 3/4 adverse events compared with the doublet therapy of dabrafenib, trametinib and placebo.

Purpose: Previous investigations identified transcriptional signatures associated with innate resistance to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 therapy in melanoma. This analysis aimed to increase understanding of the role of baseline genetic features in the variability of response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy for BRAF V600 -mutated metastatic melanoma., Patients and Methods: This exploratory analysis compared genomic features, using whole-exome and RNA sequencing, of baseline tumors from patients who had complete response versus rapid progression (disease progression at first postbaseline assessment) on treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib or vemurafenib alone. Associations of gene expression with progression-free survival or overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling., Results: Whole-exome sequencing showed that MITF and TP53 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with rapid progression, while NF1 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with complete response. However, the low frequency of alterations in any one gene precluded their characterization as drivers of response/resistance. Analysis of RNA profiles showed that expression of immune response-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients with complete response, while expression of keratinization-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients who experienced rapid progression., Conclusions: These findings suggest that enriched immune infiltration might be a shared feature favoring response to both targeted and immune therapies, while features of innate resistance to targeted and immune therapies were distinct., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway as well as programmed death 1 receptor (PD-1) blockade was shown to prolong overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF)-mutant melanoma. However, due to the lack of head-to-head trials, it remains unclear if one of these therapeutic approaches should be preferred in first-line therapy. Here, we present a retrospective analysis comparing anti-PD-1 monotherapy with BRAF/MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK) combined inhibition used as first-line agents in a real-world clinical setting., Patients and Methods: Clinical data, routine blood counts and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels of 301 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma harboring an activating mutation in BRAF (V600E/K) were included. Of these, 106 received anti-PD-1 antibodies, while 195 patients were treated with a selective BRAF inhibitor combined with an MEK inhibitor as palliative first-line therapy. Patients were sub-grouped according to previously described predictive and prognostic markers., Results: OS was significantly longer in patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy compared to patients receiving combined MAPK inhibitors. Subsequent therapies were comparable among these groups. The difference in OS was less pronounced in patients with high LDH levels and visceral metastatic spread., Conclusion: First-line treatment with a PD-1 blocking antibody might be associated with longer OS than first-line inhibition of the MAPK pathway in patients with advanced melanoma harboring mutant BRAF. These hypothesis-generating data need to be confirmed or rejected in prospective, randomized trials.

Importance: This analysis provides long-term follow-up in patients with BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma receiving first-line therapy based on anti-programmed cell death 1 receptor inhibitors., Objective: To compare the 3-year survival with nivolumab vs that with dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma., Design, Setting, and Participants: This follow-up of a randomized phase 3 trial analyzed 3-year overall survival data from the randomized, controlled, double-blind CheckMate 066 phase 3 clinical trial. For this ongoing, multicenter academic institution trial, patients were enrolled from January 2013 through February 2014. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with confirmed unresectable previously untreated stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 but without a BRAF mutation., Interventions: Patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxic events with nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks plus nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks)., Main Outcome and Measure: Overall survival., Results: At minimum follow-ups of 38.4 months among 210 participants in the nivolumab group (median age, 64 years [range, 18-86 years]; 57.6% male) and 38.5 months among 208 participants in the dacarbazine group (median age, 66 years [range, 25-87 years]; 60.1% male), 3-year overall survival rates were 51.2% (95% CI, 44.1%-57.9%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 16.1%-27.6%), respectively. The median overall survival was 37.5 months (95% CI, 25.5 months-not reached) in the nivolumab group and 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6-13.0 months) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59; P < .001). Complete and partial responses, respectively, were reported for 19.0% (40 of 210) and 23.8% (50 of 210) of patients in the nivolumab group compared with 1.4% (3 of 208) and 13.0% (27 of 208) of patients in the dacarbazine group. Additional analyses were performed on outcomes with subsequent therapies. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 15.0% (31 of 206) of nivolumab-treated patients and in 17.6% (36 of 205) of dacarbazine-treated patients. There were no deaths due to study drug toxic effects., Conclusions and Relevance: Nivolumab led to improved 3-year overall survival vs dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01721772.

Introduction: The advent of targeted therapies and immune checkpoints inhibitors has enhanced the treatment of metastatic melanomas. Despite striking improvements of patients' survival, drug resistance continues to limit the efficacy of such treatments. Genetic and nongenetic/adaptive mechanisms of resistance could be involved; in the latter mechanism, noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) are emerging as key players. Areas covered: This article outlines the current knowledge of ncRNA involvement in BRAF-mutant melanomas and the development of resistance to targeted/immunotherapies. We also discuss how ncRNAs can be exploited for the development of therapeutic and diagnostic approaches. Expert opinion: ncRNAs can be envisaged as powerful diagnostics and therapeutics. Despite progress in our knowledge about their deregulation in cancer, it is still difficult to derive universal and robust ncRNAs unique signatures of malignancy for diagnostic purposes, which need validation in large cohort of patients. Also, ncRNA specific targeting to melanoma cells in vivo requires the development of improved systemic delivery tools. In this regard, the development of stable nanodelivery particles seems to offer renewed hope for success in the clinic.

Genetic analysis of melanoma has allowed us to identify a population of patients who have more aggressive disease and harbor the driver mutation BRAF . This mutation is found in approximately 50% of metastatic disease and provides a target for focused therapies to control this disease. These responses are usually brisk; however, they lack the durability of immunotherapy. Frontline therapy for patients with BRAF -mutated melanoma is not as straightforward as prescribing BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Prior trials of combination immunotherapy demonstrate similar responses and durability of responses in patients with BRAF wild-type as well as BRAF -mutated disease. Decisions about immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or the combination of immunotherapy with targeted therapy require an oncologist to evaluate multiple factors to select which treatment option is best for the patient. Trials for metastatic melanoma have included biomarkers as secondary endpoints and aim to identify some way to predict a response, or lack thereof, to therapy. Here, we discuss the utility and reliability of biomarkers in determining therapy for patients with BRAF -mutated metastatic melanoma and discuss combination immunotherapy with targeted therapy versus sequential immunotherapy/targeted therapy as well as which regimen should be implemented as initial therapy.

Background: The oncogenic BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib improves outcomes for patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Vemurafenib is now approved for use in this patient population., Patients and Methods: In this open-label, multicentre study, patients with previously treated or untreated melanoma and the BRAF V600 mutation received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was safety. In a post hoc analysis, overall survival (OS) was analysed according to a prognostic scoring system developed using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, existence of brain metastases and baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase level. The index was validated using data from patients treated with vemurafenib or dacarbazine in three clinical trials and data from patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in two studies. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01307397)., Results: Between March 2011 and January 2013, 3224 patients were enrolled, and 3219 patients received ≥1 dose of vemurafenib (safety population); median follow-up time was 33.4 months. Vemurafenib's long-term benefits were confirmed, and no new safety signals identified. The prognostic index showed between-group differences in OS, with tight, non-overlapping confidence intervals. Validation in a pooled group of 666 vemurafenib-treated clinical trial patients revealed a similar pattern; the pattern was similar in 280 patients treated with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib., Conclusions: Final results from the vemurafenib safety study confirm vemurafenib's tolerability in BRAF V600 mutation-positive patients and resemble those seen in real-world clinical practice. This index may be useful in patients on combination therapy and as a basis for further work., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors significantly improves survival in BRAF mutated melanoma patients but is unable to prevent disease recurrence due to the emergence of drug resistance. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have been involved in these long-term treatment failures. We previously reported in lung cancer that CSCs maintenance is due to altered lipid metabolism and dependent upon Stearoyl-CoA-desaturase (SCD1)-mediated upregulation of YAP and TAZ. On this ground, we investigated the role of SCD1 in melanoma CSCs., Methods: SCD1 gene expression data of melanoma patients were downloaded from TCGA and correlated with disease progression by bioinformatics analysis and confirmed on patient's tissues by qRT-PCR and IHC analyses. The effects of combination of BRAF/MEKi and the SCD1 inhibitor MF-438 were monitored by spheroid-forming and proliferation assays on a panel of BRAF-mutated melanoma cell lines grown in 3D and 2D conditions, respectively. SCD1, YAP/TAZ and stemness markers were evaluated in melanoma cells and tissues by qRT-PCR, WB and Immunofluorescence., Results: We first observed that SCD1 expression increases during melanoma progression. BRAF-mutated melanoma 3D cultures enriched for CSCs overexpressed SCD1 and were more resistant than 2D differentiated cultures to BRAF and MEK inhibitors. We next showed that exposure of BRAF-mutated melanoma cells to MAPK pathway inhibitors enhanced stemness features by upregulating the expression of YAP/TAZ and downstream genes but surprisingly not SCD1. However, SCD1 pharmacological inhibition was able to downregulate YAP/TAZ and to revert at the same time CSC enrichment and resistance to MAPK inhibitors., Conclusions: Our data underscore the role of SCD1 as prognostic marker in melanoma and promote the use of SCD1 inhibitors in combination with MAPK inhibitors for the control of drug resistance.

Importance: Prognostic models may provide insight into clinical trial results and inform the clinical management of patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma., Objective: To identify subgroups with distinct survival outcomes based on clinical and genomic characteristics and to assess survival in identified prognostic subgroups across cohorts treated with dacarbazine, vemurafenib, or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective and exploratory recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) modeled associations between prespecified covariates and survival outcomes using pooled data from the BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM studies., Interventions: Dacarbazine, vemurafenib, or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib., Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: The RPA included 1365 patients (783 men; 57.4%). Of these, 1032 (75.6%) were older than 65 years; 310 received cobimetinib plus vemurafenib; 717, vemurafenib alone; and 338, dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 14.1 months (interquartile range, 6.3-28.3 months). In the RPA that included all patients, baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), presence or absence of liver metastases, and baseline sum of longest diameters of target lesions (SLDs) were significant prognostic factors for PFS: Median PFS was longest in patients with lower LDH (≤2 × upper limit of normal [ULN]), ECOG PS 0, and shorter SLD (≤44 mm) (11.1 months; 95% CI, 7.0-18.4 months), and shortest in those with elevated LDH (>2 × ULN) (3.5 months; 95% CI, 3.0-3.8 months). The subgroup with normal baseline LDH and no liver metastases had the longest median OS (22.7 months; 95% CI, 20.3-27.2 months). Similar PFS trends were observed when these prognostic subgroups were applied to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib, vemurafenib alone, and dacarbazine cohorts. Baseline LDH, ECOG PS, and SLD were significant prognostic factors for OS: Median OS was longest in patients with normal LDH and shorter SLD (≤45 mm) (27.2 months; 95% CI, 22.1-32.1 months) and shortest in those with elevated LDH (>2 × ULN) (6.0 months; 95% CI, 5.3-6.8 months). Among patients in the most favorable subgroup (normal LDH and SLD ≤45 mm), 3-year OS rates were 53.3% (95% CI, 39.5%-67.1%) in the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib cohort, 35.6% (95% CI, 27.4%-43.8%) in the vemurafenib cohort, and 35.6% (95% CI, 24.8%-46.4%) in the dacarbazine cohort. Among patients with available gene expression data, RPA identified gene signature as a significant prognostic factor for PFS in those with normal LDH; 3-year PFS rates were 21.9%, (95% CI, 15.4%-28.4%) and 8.8% (95% CI, 3.6%-14.1%) in immune and cell cycle signature, respectively. The RPA for OS did not identify gene signature as a significant factor., Conclusions and Relevance: Baseline LDH, ECOG PS, disease burden, and gene signature appear to be key determinants of survival outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma treated with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors. These results are consistent with survival benefits of cobimetinib plus vemurafenib over vemurafenib alone observed in the coBRIM study.

Background: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib alone improved progression-free survival compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma in the COLUMBUS trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint of overall survival., Methods: COLUMBUS was a two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma, BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of interactive response technology to receive oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). Randomisation was stratified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, ECOG performance status, and BRAF mutation status. The primary outcome of the trial, progression-free survival with encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib, was reported previously. Here we present the prespecified interim overall survival analysis. Efficacy analyses were by intent to treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Part 2 of the study was initiated at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration to better understand the contribution of binimetinib to the combination therapy by comparing encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily with encorafenib 300 mg once daily alone. Results of part 2 will be published separately. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38., Findings: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive encorafenib plus binimetinib (n=192), encorafenib (n=194), or vemurafenib (n=191). Median follow-up for overall survival was 36·8 months (95% CI 35·9-37·5). Median overall survival was 33·6 months (95% CI 24·4-39·2) with encorafenib plus binimetinib and 16·9 months (14·0-24·5) with vemurafenib (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·47-0·79]; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events did not change substantially from the first report; those seen in more than 5% of patients treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (14 [7%]), and hypertension (12 [6%]); those seen with encorafenib alone were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and with vemurafenib the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). One death in the combination treatment group was considered by the investigator to be possibly related to treatment., Interpretation: The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib provided clinically meaningful efficacy with good tolerability as shown by improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with vemurafenib. These data suggest that the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is likely to become an important therapeutic option in patients with BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma., Funding: Array BioPharma, Novartis., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Melanoma is a molecularly heterogeneous disease with many genetic mutations and altered signaling pathways. Activating mutations in the BRAF oncogene are observed in approximately 50% of cutaneous melanomas and the use of BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) compounds has been reported to improve the outcome of patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. However, the majority of these patients develop resistance within 6-8 months following the initiation of BRAFi treatment. In this study, we examined the possible use of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) inhibitor, ABT-888 (veliparib), as a novel molecule that may be successfully employed in the treatment of BRAFi-resistant melanoma cells. Sensitive and resistant to BRAFi dabrafenib A375 cells were exposed to increasing concentrations of ABT-888. Cell viability and apoptosis were assessed by MTT assay and Annexin V-FITC analysis, respectively. The cell migratory and invasive ability was investigated using the xCELLigence technology and Boyden chamber assays, respectively. ABT-888 was found to reduce cell viability and exhibited pro-apoptotic activity in melanoma cell lines, independently from the BRAF/NRAS mutation status, in a dose-dependent manner, with the maximal effect being reached in the 25-50 µM concentration range. Moreover, ABT-888 promoted apoptosis in both the sensitive and resistant A375 cells, suggesting that ABT-888 may be useful in the treatment of BRAFi-resistant subsets of melanoma cells. Finally, in accordance with the involvement of PARP1 in actin cytoskeletal machinery, we found that the cytoskeletal organization, motility and invasive capability of both the A375 and A375R cells decreased upon exposure to 5 µM ABT-888 for 24 h. On the whole, the findings of this study highlight the pivotal role of PARP1 in the migration and invasion of melanoma cells, suggesting that ABT-888 may indeed be effective, not only as a pro-apoptotic drug for use in the treatment of BRAFi-resistant melanoma cells, but also in suppressing their migratory and invasive activities.

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: Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAF V600 -mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma., Methods: COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38., Findings: Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8-16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0-18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6-8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41-0·71; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator., Interpretation: Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma., Funding: Array BioPharma, Novartis., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the coBRIM study, cobimetinib plus vemurafenib (C+V) significantly improved survival outcomes vs placebo and vemurafenib (P+V) in patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma. An analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) from coBRIM is reported., Methods: Patients completing the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline and ⩾1 time point thereafter constituted the analysis population. Change from baseline ⩾10 points was considered clinically meaningful., Results: Mean baseline scores for all QLQ-C30 domains were similar between arms. Most on-treatment scores for QLQ-C30 domains were also comparable between arms. A transient deterioration in role function in cycle 1 day 15 (C1D15; -14.7 points) in the P+V arm and improvement in insomnia in the C+V arm at C2D15 (-12.4 points) was observed. Among patients who experienced a ⩾10-point change from baseline (responders), between-group differences were greatest for insomnia (16%), social functioning (10%), fatigue (9%) and pain (7%), all favouring C+V. Diarrhoea, photosensitivity reaction, pyrexia, and rash did not meaningfully affect global health status (GHS). Serous retinopathy was associated with a transient decrease in GHS at C1D15 assessment., Conclusions: In patients with advanced/metastatic BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma, treatment with C+V maintained HRQOL compared with P+V, with superior efficacy.

Background: Most metastatic melanoma patients treated with BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) ± MEK inhibitors (MEKi) eventually progress on treatment. Along with acquired resistance due to genetic changes, epigenetic mechanisms that could be reversed after BRAFi discontinuation have been described. The purpose of this study was to analyse retrospectively outcomes for patients retreated with BRAF-directed therapy., Patients and Methods: One hundred sixteen metastatic melanoma patients who received BRAFi-based therapy and, after a break, were rechallenged with BRAFi ± MEKi at 14 centres in Europe, US and Australia were studied, respectively. Response rate (RR), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of retreatment were calculated., Results: The median duration of treatment was 9.4 months for first BRAFi ± MEKi treatment and 7.7 months for the subsequent treatment (immunotherapy 72%, other 17%, drug holiday 11%) after BRAFi discontinuation. Brain metastases were present in 51 (44%) patients at BRAFi retreatment. The RR to rechallenge with BRAFi ± MEKi was 43.3%: complete response (CR) 2.6%, partial response (PR) 40.7%, stable disease (SD) 24.8% and progressive disease 31.9%, 3 missing. Of 83 patients who previously discontinued BRAFi due to disease progression, 31 (37.3%) responded (30 PR and 1 CR) to retreatment. The median OS from retreatment was 9.8 months, and PFS was 5 months. Independent prognostic factors for survival at rechallenge included number of metastatic sites (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32 for each additional organ with metastases, P < .001), lactic dehydrogenase (HR = 1.37 for each multiple of the upper normal limit, P < .001), while rechallenge with combination BRAFi + MEKi conferred a better OS versus BRAFi alone (HR = 0.5, P = .006)., Conclusion: Rechallenge with BRAFi ± MEKi results in a clinically meaningful benefit and should be considered for selected patients., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The BRIM-3 trial showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. We present final OS data from BRIM-3., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). OS and PFS were co-primary end points. OS was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with and without censoring of data for dacarbazine patients who crossed over to vemurafenib., Results: Between 4 January 2010 and 16 December 2010, a total of 675 patients were randomized to vemurafenib (n = 337) or dacarbazine (n = 338, of whom 84 crossed over to vemurafenib). At the time of database lock (14 August 2015), median OS, censored at crossover, was significantly longer for vemurafenib than for dacarbazine {13.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.0-15.4] versus 9.7 months [95% CI 7.9-12.8; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]; P = 0.03}, as was median OS without censoring at crossover [13.6 months (95% CI 12.0-15.4) versus 10.3 months (95% CI 9.1-12.8); HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.96); P = 0.01]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS rates for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine were 56% versus 46%, 30% versus 24%, 21% versus 19% and 17% versus 16% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively. Overall, 173 of the 338 patients (51%) in the dacarbazine arm and 175 of the 337 (52%) of those in the vemurafenib arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, most commonly ipilimumab. Safety data were consistent with the primary analysis., Conclusions: Vemurafenib continues to be associated with improved median OS in the BRIM-3 trial after extended follow-up. OS curves converged after ≈3 years, likely as a result of crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib and receipt of subsequent anticancer therapies., Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01006980., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Purpose: The association of tumor gene expression profiles with progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes in patients with BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib was evaluated. Experimental Design: Gene expression of archival tumor samples from patients in four trials (BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM) was evaluated. Genes significantly associated with PFS ( P < 0.05) were identified by univariate Cox proportional hazards modeling, then subjected to unsupervised hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis, and recursive partitioning to develop optimized gene signatures. Results: Forty-six genes were identified as significantly associated with PFS in both BRIM-2 ( n = 63) and the vemurafenib arm of BRIM-3 ( n = 160). Two distinct signatures were identified: cell cycle and immune. Among vemurafenib-treated patients, the cell-cycle signature was associated with shortened PFS compared with the immune signature in the BRIM-2/BRIM-3 training set [hazard ratio (HR) 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-2.6, P = 0.0001] and in the coBRIM validation set ( n = 101; HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5; P = 0.08). The adverse impact of the cell-cycle signature on PFS was not observed in patients treated with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib ( n = 99; HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8; P = 0.66). Conclusions: In vemurafenib-treated patients, the cell-cycle gene signature was associated with shorter PFS. However, in cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib-treated patients, both cell cycle and immune signature subgroups had comparable PFS. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib may abrogate the adverse impact of the cell-cycle signature. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5238-45. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Serous chorioretinopathy has been associated with MEK inhibitors, including cobimetinib. We describe the clinical features of serous retinopathy observed with cobimetinib in patients with BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma treated in the Phase III coBRIM study., Methods: In the coBRIM study, 493 patients were treated in two randomly assigned treatment groups: cobimetinib and vemurafenib (n = 247) or vemurafenib (n = 246). All patients underwent prospective ophthalmic examinations at screening, at regular intervals during the study, and whenever ocular symptoms developed. Patients with serous retinopathy were identified in the study database using a group of relevant and synonymous adverse event terms., Results: Eighty-six serous retinopathy events were reported in 70 patients (79 events in 63 cobimetinib and vemurafenib-treated patients vs seven events in seven vemurafenib-treated patients). Most patients with serous retinopathy identified by ophthalmic examination had no symptoms or had mild symptoms, among them reduced visual acuity, blurred vision, dyschromatopsia, and photophobia. Serous retinopathy usually occurred early during cobimetinib and vemurafenib treatment; median time to onset was 1.0 month. Most events were managed by observation and continuation of cobimetinib without dose modification and resolved or were resolving by the data cutoff date (19 Sept 2014)., Conclusions: Cobimetinib treatment was associated with serous retinopathy in patients with BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma. Retinopathy was generally asymptomatic or mild. Periodic ophthalmologic evaluations at regular intervals and at the manifestation of any visual disturbance are recommended to facilitate early detection and resolution of serous retinopathy while patients are taking cobimetinib. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01689519). First received: September 18, 2012.

Background: In the coBRIM phase III trial, the addition of cobimetinib, an MEK inhibitor, to vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, significantly improved progression-free survival [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; P < 0.0001] and overall survival (HR, 0.70; P = 0.005) in advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Here, we report on the incidence, course, and management of key adverse events (AEs) in the coBRIM study., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice a day) and either cobimetinib (60 mg once a day, 21 days on/7 days off) or placebo. In addition to standard safety evaluations, patients underwent regular ophthalmic, cardiac, and dermatologic surveillance examinations., Results: Of 495 patients recruited to the study, 493 patients received treatment and constituted the safety population (cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, 247; vemurafenib, 246). At data cut-off (30 September 2015), median follow-up was 18.5 months. Nearly every patient experienced an AE. In patients who received cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib, the frequency of grade ≥3 AEs was higher than in patients who received vemurafenib alone (75% versus 61%). Most AEs, including grade ≥3 AEs, occurred within the first treatment cycle. After the first cycle (28 days), the incidence of common AEs (rash, diarrhoea, photosensitivity, elevated creatine phosphokinase, serous retinopathy, pyrexia, and liver laboratory abnormalities) decreased substantially over time. Most AEs were managed conservatively by supportive care measures, dose modifications of study treatment, and, occasionally, permanent treatment discontinuation., Conclusions: These data indicate that most AEs arising from treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib generally occur early in the treatment course, are mild or moderate and are manageable by patient monitoring, dose modification and supportive care., Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01689519., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Raf-mitogen-activated protein kinase (Raf-MAPK) pathway inhibition with the BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib, alone or in combination with a MEK inhibitor, has become a standard therapeutic approach in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. Both vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown good safety and efficacy as monotherapy compared with chemotherapy. However, the duration of response is limited in the majority of patients treated with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy because of the development of acquired resistance. The addition of a MEK inhibitor can improve blockade of the MAPK pathway and may help to overcome resistance and thereby prolong efficacy, as well as reduce cutaneous toxicity. Combinations of BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors (dabrafenib plus trametinib and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib) have been approved for the treatment of BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma and may become a new standard of care. However, acquired resistance is still a significant concern with BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapy, and other strategies are being investigated, including the use of sequential and intermittent schedules. The combination of BRAF or MEK inhibitors with immunotherapy has been shown to hold considerable promise, with several combinations being evaluated in clinical trials. Preliminary results from clinical trials involving triple combination therapy with BRAF-MEK inhibitors and anti-PD-L1 antibodies appear promising and may indicate a new strategy to treat patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. Biomarkers are needed to help identify patients with BRAFV600 mutations most likely to benefit from first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy rather than immunotherapy and vice versa.

Background: It is unknown whether melanoma patients achieving complete response (CR) with targeted therapy can safely discontinue treatment., Methods: All patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors achieving CR and ceasing treatment before progression were identified. Clinical data at treatment initiation, cessation and progression were examined., Results: A total of 12 eligible patients were identified, with median follow-up of 16 months, of whom 6 (50%) recurred at a median of 6.6 months after treatment cessation. One patient lost to follow-up until presentation with symptomatic recurrence was the only relapser to die. At relapse, the remaining five patients had an LDH <1.2 times ULN, four were ECOG 0 and one ECOG 1. Baseline characteristics and time to CR and to discontinuation did not influence the rate of relapse., Conclusions: A large proportion of patients achieving CR with BRAF/MEK inhibitors relapse after treatment cessation. The optimal treatment duration in such patients is unclear, particularly where alternative treatments are available., Competing Interests: MS Carlino participated in the advisory boards for Merck, Amgen, Novartis and Bristol Myer Squibb. AM Menzies participated in the advisory boards for Merck, Novartis and Bristol Myer Squibb. RF Kefford participated in the advisory boards for Merck, Amgen, Novartis and Bristol Myer Squibb. GV Long participated in the advisory boards of Amgen, Bristol Myer Squibb, Glaxosmithkline, Novartis, Provectus, Roche and Merck Inc. PA Ascierto participated in the advisory boards for Merck, Amgen, Novartis and Bristol Myer Squibb. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: The combination of cobimetinib with vemurafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo and vemurafenib in previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma, as previously reported in the coBRIM study. In this Article, we report updated efficacy results, including overall survival and safety after longer follow-up, and selected biomarker correlative studies., Methods: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed BRAF(V600) mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive response system to receive cobimetinib (60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day rest period in each 28-day cycle) or placebo, in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). Progression-free and overall survival were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; all analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01689519, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants., Findings: Between Jan 8, 2013, and Jan 31, 2014, 495 eligible adult patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib group (n=247) or placebo plus vemurafenib group (n=248). At a median follow-up of 14·2 months (IQR 8·5-17·3), the updated investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 7·2 months (5·6-7·5) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46-0·72], p<0·0001). The final analysis for overall survival occurred when 255 (52%) patients had died (Aug 28, 2015). Median overall survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·3-not estimable) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 17·4 months (95% CI 15·0-19·8) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·90; p=0·005). The safety profile for cobimetinib and vemurafenib was tolerable and manageable, and no new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events occurring at a higher frequency in patients in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group compared with the vemurafenib group were γ-glutamyl transferase increase (36 [15%] in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group vs 25 [10%] in the placebo and vemurafenib group), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (30 [12%] vs one [<1%]), and alanine transaminase increase (28 [11%] vs 15 [6%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 92 patients (37%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 69 patients (28%) in the vemurafenib group. Pyrexia (six patients [2%]) and dehydration (five patients [2%]) were the most common serious adverse events reported in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group. A total of 259 patients have died: 117 (47%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 142 (58%) in the vemurafenib group. The primary cause of death was disease progression in most patients: 109 (93%) of 117 in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 133 (94%) of 142 in the vemurafenib group., Interpretation: These data confirm the clinical benefit of cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib and support the use of the combination as a standard first-line approach to improve survival in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Therapy of melanoma patients harboring activating mutations in the BRAF (V-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1) oncogene with a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors is plagued by the development of drug resistance. Mutational events, as well as adaptive mechanisms, contribute to the development of drug resistance. In this context we uncover here the role of a miRNA, miR-579-3p. We first show that low expression of miR-579-3p is a negative prognostic factor correlating with poor survival. Expression levels of miR-579-3p decrease from nevi to stage III/IV melanoma samples and even further in cell lines resistant to BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Mechanistically, we demonstrate that miR-579-3p acts as an oncosuppressor by targeting the 3'UTR of two oncoproteins: BRAF and an E3 ubiquitin protein ligase, MDM2. Moreover miR-579-3p ectopic expression impairs the establishment of drug resistance in human melanoma cells. Finally, miR-579-3p is strongly down-regulated in matched tumor samples from patients before and after the development of resistance to targeted therapies., Competing Interests: P.A.A. served as consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Ventana, Novartis, and Amgen, and has received research funds from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, and Ventana.

Background: BRAF(V600E)-mediated MAPK pathway activation is associated in melanoma cells with IFNAR1 downregulation. IFNAR1 regulates melanoma cell sensitivity to IFNα, a cytokine used for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. These findings and the limited therapeutic efficacy of BRAF-I prompted us to examine whether the efficacy of IFNα therapy of BRAF(V600E) melanoma can be increased by its combination with BRAF-I., Methods: BRAF/NRAS genotype, ERK activation, IFNAR1, and HLA class I expression were tested in 60 primary melanoma tumors from treatment-naive patients. The effect of BRAF-I on IFNAR1 expression was assessed in three melanoma cell lines and in four biopsies of BRAF(V600E) metastases. The antiproliferative, pro-apoptotic and immunomodulatory activity of BRAF-I and IFNα combination was tested in vitro and in vivo utilizing three melanoma cell lines, HLA class I-MA peptide complex-specific T-cells and immunodeficient mice (5 per group for survival and 10 per group for tumor growth inhibition). All statistical tests were two-sided. Differences were considered statistically significant when the P value was less than .05., Results: The IFNAR1 level was statistically significantly (P < .001) lower in BRAF(V600E) primary melanoma tumors than in BRAF wild-type tumors. IFNAR1 downregulation was reversed by BRAF-I treatment in the three melanoma cell lines (P ≤ .02) and in three out of four metastases. The IFNAR1 level in the melanoma tumors analyzed was increased as early as 10 to 14 days following the beginning of the treatment. These changes were associated with: 1) an increased susceptibility in vitro of melanoma cells to the antiproliferative (P ≤ .04), pro-apoptotic (P ≤ .009) and immunomodulatory activity, including upregulation of HLA class I antigen APM component (P ≤ .04) and MA expression as well as recognition by cognate T-cells (P < .001), of BRAF-I and IFNα combination and 2) an increased survival (P < .001) and inhibition of tumor growth of melanoma cells (P < .001) in vivo by BRAF-I and IFNα combination., Conclusions: The described results provide a strong rationale for the clinical trials implemented in BRAF(V600E) melanoma patients with BRAF-I and IFNα combination., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Patients with metastatic melanoma bearing V600 mutations in BRAF oncogene clinically benefit from the treatment with BRAF inhibitors alone or in combination with MEK inhibitors. However, a limitation to such treatment is the occurrence of resistance. Tackling the adaptive changes helping cells survive from drug treatment may offer new therapeutic opportunities. Very recently the ErbB3 receptor has been shown to act as a central node promoting survival of BRAF mutated melanoma. In this paper we first demonstrate that ErbB3/AKT hyperphosphorylation occurs in BRAF mutated melanoma cell lines following exposure to BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors. This strongly correlates with increased transcriptional activation of its ligand neuregulin. Anti-ErbB3 antibodies impair the establishment of de novo cell resistance to BRAF inhibition in vitro. In order to more potently ablate ErbB3 activity we used a combination of two anti-ErbB3 antibodies directed against distinct epitopes of its extracellular domain. These two antibodies in combo with BRAF/MEK inhibitors potently inhibit in vitro cell growth and tumor regrowth after drug withdrawal in an in vivo xenograft model. Importantly, residual tumor masses from mice treated by the antibodies and BRAF/ERK inhibitors combo are characterized almost exclusively by large necrotic areas with limited residual areas of tumor growth. Taken together, our findings support the concept that triple therapy directed against BRAF/MEK/ErbB3 may be able to provide durable control of BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma.

The development of novel treatments that selectively inhibit the RAS-RAF-MAPK pathway represents a milestone in the history of melanoma treatment. BRAF mutations occur in approximately 45% of cutaneous melanomas, while mutations in NRAS occur in 15-25%. Vemurafenib was the first BRAF inhibitor to be approved in 2011, based on the results of a phase III trial (BRIM-3) that showed higher progression-free survival and overall survival compared with dacarbazine chemotherapy in metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma. Dabrafenib, another BRAF inhibitor, has shown similar results and was approved in 2013. Preclinical studies suggested that another novel group of agents, the MEK inhibitors, showed stronger inhibition of both mutated BRAF and NRAS cell cultures than vemurafenib. Trametinib was the first MEK inhibitor approved in 2014, both as a single agent and in combination with dabrafenib for the treatment of advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Other MEK inhibitors are also in development. Concomitant inhibition of both MEK and BRAF has shown more durable and greater tumor response than BRAF monotherapy, by overcoming the multiple genetic mechanisms of escape. Combined therapy prevents the development of acquired resistance as well as decreasing cutaneous toxicity secondary to paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway induced by BRAF inhibitors. Various combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors have shown promising results. Moreover, triple combination therapies involved other agents with novel mechanisms of action are also being evaluated. These and other combination strategies involving immunotherapies and targeted therapies offer the hope of improving outcomes beyond those already achieved with anti-BRAF treatments.

The prognosis of metastatic melanoma has changed markedly in recent years because of the advent of newer targeted therapies such as BRAF inhibitors. However, the response to BRAF inhibitor therapy is frequently nondurable in patients with advanced melanoma. Novel approaches are thus needed to overcome resistance to these agents and to improve the management of advanced melanoma patients after disease progression. Here, we present the case of a 44-year-old man diagnosed with advanced melanoma in July 2010, harboring a BRAF mutation. Melanoma progressed during first-line chemotherapy with dacarbazine, but showed significant benefit after the initiation of vemurafenib on August 2011. Six months later, the patient experienced disease progression in left-obturator lymphadenopathy; still, anti-BRAF treatment was continued together with stereotactic radiotherapy, and was interrupted only shortly for intestinal occlusion secondary to melanoma metastasis of the bowel. When his conditions were stable, after 1 month of vemurafenib treatment discontinuation, anti-BRAF therapy was reinitiated, with a positive outcome. Vemurafenib treatment was definitively discontinued for disease progression in the brain, peritoneum, lymph node, intestine, and skin in March 2013, after about 20 months from initiation, and the patient died a few weeks later. The clinical case presented here shows that treatment beyond progression with vemurafenib can yield a survival benefit in melanoma patients whose disease progresses in a few sites, which can be treated with locoregional therapies. This clinical strategy needs further validation in prospective clinical trials.

Background: Activated PI3K-AKT pathway may contribute to decrease sensitivity to inhibitors of key pathogenetic effectors (mutated BRAF, active NRAS or MEK) in melanoma. Functional alterations are deeply involved in PI3K-AKT activation, with a minimal role reported for mutations in PIK3CA, the catalytic subunit of the PI3K gene. We here assessed the prevalence of the coexistence of BRAF/NRAS and PIK3CA mutations in a series of melanoma samples., Methods: A total of 245 tumor specimens (212 primary melanomas and 33 melanoma cell lines) was screened for mutations in BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA genes by automated direct sequencing., Results: Overall, 110 (44.9%) samples carried mutations in BRAF, 26 (10.6%) in NRAS, and 24 (9.8%) in PIK3CA. All identified PIK3CA mutations have been reported to induce PI3K activation; those detected in cultured melanomas were investigated for their interference with the antiproliferative activity of the BRAF-mutant inhibitor vemurafenib. A reduced suppression in cell growth was observed in treated cells carrying both BRAF and PIK3CA mutations as compared with those presenting a mutated BRAF only. Among the analysed melanomas, 12/245 (4.9%) samples presented the coexistence of PIK3CA and BRAF/NRAS mutations., Conclusions: Our study further suggests that PIK3CA mutations account for a small fraction of PI3K pathway activation and have a limited impact in interfering with the BRAF/NRAS-driven growth in melanoma.

Background: The existence of a dichotomy between immunologically active and quiescent tumor phenotypes has been recently recognized in several types of cancer. The activation of a Th1 type of immune signature has been shown to confer better prognosis and likelihood to respond to immunotherapy. However, whether such dichotomy depends on the genetic make-up of individual cancers is not known yet. BRAF and NRAS mutations are commonly acquired during melanoma progression. Here we explored the role of BRAF and NRAS mutations in influencing the immune phenotype based on a classification previously identified by our group., Methods: One-hundred-thirteen melanoma metastases underwent microarray analysis and BRAF and NRAS genotyping. Allele-specific PCR was also performed in order to exclude low-frequency mutations., Results: Comparison between BRAF and NRAS mutant versus wild type samples identified mostly constituents or regulators of MAPK and related pathways. When testing gene lists discriminative of BRAF, NRAS and MAPK alterations, we found that 112 BRAF-specific transcripts were able to distinguish the two immune-related phenotypes already described in melanoma, with the poor phenotype associated mostly with BRAF mutation. Noteworthy, such association was stronger in samples displaying low BRAF mRNA expression. However, when testing NRAS mutations, we were not able to find the same association., Conclusion: This study suggests that BRAF mutation-related specific transcripts associate with a poor phenotype in melanoma and provide a nest for further investigation., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: We describe the ad interim analysis of the Italian cohort of the global safety study on vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma., Patients & Methods: A total of 385 patients received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily., Results: In total, 330 patients (86%) reported adverse events; 16 serious adverse events were observed (three related to vemurafenib). The response rate was 30.4%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5.9 months and 16.3 months, respectively. In patients with brain metastasis (BM; n = 83), median PFS was 4.3 months and OS was 7.6 months. In patients without BM, PFS was 6.5 months and OS was not reached. Median PFS was 12.6 months in patients with M1a stage of disease, 9.6 months in those with M1b stage and 5.4 months in subjects with M1c stage., Conclusion: Vemurafenib appears safe and active in clinical practice, and seems particularly active in patients without BM and low tumor burden.

Background: The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib., Methods: We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival., Results: The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy., Conclusions: The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).

Background: Aurora kinase A (AurkA) is over-expressed in melanoma and its inhibition has been observed to limit tumor growth, suggesting a potential role in melanoma treatment., Methods: A human melanoma cell line with the B-RAF (V600E) mutation (A375mel) was exposed to B-RAF inhibitor (GSK2118436), MEK inhibitor (GSK1120212) and AurkA inhibitor (MLN8054) as single agents or in various combinations (BRAF plus AurkA inhibitor, MEK plus AurkA inhibitor or triple combination BRAF plus MEK plus AurkA inhibitor). Cell proliferation was assessed using xCELLigence technology. Total protein extracts were examined for p53 and c-Myc protein expression by Western blot analysis. Drug anti-tumor effects were further assessed using a 3D-human melanoma skin reconstruction model, in which tissues were incubated with serum-free medium containing control, B-RAF plus MEK inhibitor, MEK plus AurkA inhibitor or the triple combination., Results: AurkA inhibitor plus B-RAF inhibitor, AurkA inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor or triple combination had a markedly greater anti-proliferative effect on A375 (BRAFV600E) melanoma cells than single agents. In the 3D human skin model, the triple combination had a greater anti-tumor effect at the epidermal/dermal junction than control or either double combination. However, S-100 and Ki-67 positively stained spindle-shaped cells were detected in the dermal stratum, suggesting the presence of alive and proliferating melanoma cells., Conclusions: These findings provide new prospects for melanoma research, including combined B-RAF/AurkA inhibition for B-RAF mutated melanomas and MEK/AurkA inhibitor combination for patients without B-RAF mutations. Moreover, for the first time, we have shown that a B-RAF, MEK and AurkA inhibitor triple drug combination offers increased efficacy against melanoma cell growth and might be considered as a potential treatment strategy for enhancing clinical response in melanoma. However, although this triple drug combination was more effective at the epidermal/dermal junction, the suggested presence of alive and proliferating melanoma cells in the dermal stratum could result in drug resistance and disease recurrence. Molecular characterization of these dermal cells may be critical for the development of novel therapeutic strategies.