Search

Objectives: Canakinumab, an interleukin-1 beta inhibitor, previously showed reduced lung cancer incidence and mortality (CANTOS). Here, we compare the efficacy/safety of canakinumab versus placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had progressed after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) and immunotherapy., Materials and Methods: CANOPY-2, a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, enrolled adult patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, without EGFR or ALK alterations, who had received one prior PDC regimen and one prior programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor and experienced subsequent disease progression. Patients were randomized to canakinumab plus docetaxel or placebo plus docetaxel., Results: A total of 237 patients were randomly allocated: 120 (51 %) to canakinumab and 117 (49 %) to placebo, stratified by histology and prior lines of therapy. Three patients in the placebo arm did not receive study treatment. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of overall survival: median 10.6 months (95 % confidence interval [CI], 8.2-12.4) for the canakinumab arm and 11.3 months (95 % CI, 8.5-13.8) for the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 1.06 [95 % CI, 0.76-1.48]; one-sided P-value = 0.633). AEs (any grade) were reported in 95 % of patients in the canakinumab group and in 98 % of patients in the placebo group. Grade 3-4 AEs were experienced by 62 % and 64 % of patients in the canakinumab and placebo groups, respectively, and grade 5 AEs were experienced by 8 % and 5 %. Prespecified, post-hoc subgroup analyses showed that patients with undetected circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and/or lower levels (< 10 mg/L) of C-reactive protein (CRP) achieved longer progression-free and overall survival than those with detected ctDNA or higher (≥ 10 mg/L) CRP levels. There was no association with treatment arm., Conclusion: Adding canakinumab to docetaxel did not provide additional benefit for patients with advanced NSCLC who had progressed after PDC and immunotherapy., Clinical Registration: NCT03626545., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Luis Paz-Ares reports grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and Pfizer; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, and Mirati; leadership roles in Altum Sequencing and Genomica, all outside the submitted work. Yasushi Goto reports clinical trial grants from AZK and Pfizer; institutional grants from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Kyorin, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Pfizer; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Guardant Health Inc., Illumina, Merck, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Taiho; leadership roles in Cancer Net Japan and JAMT, all outside the submitted work. Darren Lim reports grants from Bristol Myers Squibb; speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Roche; and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca and Taiho Pharmaceuticals, all outside the submitted work. Balazs Halmos reports research funding and honoraria for steering committee work from Novartis during the conduct of the study; reports grants from AbbVie, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, and Veracyte; and participation in advisory board meetings for Apollomics and TPT, all outside the submitted work. Byoung Chul Cho reports research funding from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Champions Oncology, Dizal Pharma, Dong-A ST, Eli Lilly, GI Innovation, Interpark Bio Convergence Corp., Janssen, MedPacto, Merck, MOGAN Institute, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Yuhan; royalties from Champions Oncology; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MedPacto, Merck, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, and Yuhan; participation in advisory board meetings for Bridgebio Therapeutics, Cyrus Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Joseah BIO, and KANAPH Therapeutics Inc.; stock ownership of Bridgebio Therapeutics, Cyrus Therapeutics, Gencurix Inc., Interpark Bio Convergence Corp., KANAPH Therapeutics Inc., and TheraCanVac Inc.; is a board of director for Gencurix Inc. and Interpark Bio Convergence Corp.; and is a founder of DAAN Biotherapeutics, all outside the submitted work. José Luis González Larriba reports consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Merck; speaker honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and support for attending meetings from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, all outside the submitted work. Caicun Zhou reports speaker honoraria from Amoy Diagnostics, Boehringer Ingelheim, C-stone, Eli Lilly, LUYE Pharma, Merck, Qilu, Roche, and Sanofi; and speaker and advisor fees from Hengrui, Innovent Biologics and TopAlliance Biosciences Inc., all outside the submitted work. Ingel Demedts reports consultancy and speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and Roche, outside the submitted work. Jincheng Wu, David Demanse, and Bharani Dharan are Novartis employees. Bijoyesh Mookerjee, Socorro Portella, and Zewen Zhu were Novartis employees at the time the study was conducted. Martin Reck reports consulting fees, speaker honoraria and support for attending meetings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; and participation in advisory board meetings for Sanofi, all outside of submitted work. Manuel Cobo, Akin Atmaca, and Sofia Baka declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. 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.)

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.

Oncogene-targeted therapy with B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF) and mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors induces a high initial response rate in patients with BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma, with a median duration of response of approximately 1 year 1-3 . Immunotherapy with antibodies to programmed death 1 (PD-1) produces lower response rates but with long response duration. Preclinical models suggest that combining BRAF and MEK inhibitors with PD-1 blockade therapy improves antitumor activity 4-6 , which may provide additional treatment options for patients unlikely to have long-lasting responses to either mode of therapy alone. We enrolled 15 patients with BRAF V600 -mutated metastatic melanoma in a first-in-human clinical trial of dabrafenib, trametinib and pembrolizumab ( NCT02130466 ). Eleven patients (73%) experienced grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events, the most common being elevation of liver function tests and pyrexia, most of which resolved with drug interruption or discontinuation of either the anti-PD-1 antibody or the targeted therapy combination. Eleven patients (73%; 95% confidence interval = 45-92%) had an objective response, and six (40%; 95% confidence interval = 16-68%) continued with a response at a median follow-up of 27 months (range = 10.3-38.4+ months) for all patients. This study suggests that this triple-combined therapy may benefit a subset of patients with BRAF V600 -mutated metastatic melanoma by increasing the frequency of long-lasting antitumor responses.

Background: In the phase 3 COMBI-AD study, patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations received adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib or placebo. The primary analysis showed that dabrafenib plus trametinib significantly improved relapse-free survival at 3 years. These results led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations. Here, we report the patient-reported outcomes from COMBI-AD., Methods: COMBI-AD was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done at 169 sites in 25 countries. Study participants were aged 18 years or older and had complete resection of stage IIIA (lymph node metastases >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma as per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria, with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system, stratified by mutation type and disease stage, to receive oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) or matching placebos for 12 months. Patients, physicians, and the investigators who analysed the data were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival, reported elsewhere. Health-related quality of life, reported here, was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, and was assessed with the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in the intention-to-treat population. We used a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis to assess differences in health-related quality of life between groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01682083. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer recruiting participants., Findings: Between Jan 31, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 870 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=438) or matching placebos (n=432). Data were collected until the data cutoff for analyses of the primary endpoint (June 30, 2017). The median follow-up was 34 months (IQR 28-39) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 33 months (20·5-39) in the placebo group. During the 12-month treatment phase, there were no significant or clinically meaningful changes from baseline between groups in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) or utility scores. During treatment, there were no clinically meaningful differences in VAS scores or utility scores in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group between patients who did and did not experience the most common adverse events. During long-term follow-up (range 15-48 months), VAS and utility scores were similar between groups and did not differ from baseline scores. At recurrence, there were significant decreases in VAS scores in both the dabrafenib plus trametinib group (mean change -6·02, SD 20·57; p=0·0032) and the placebo group (-6·84, 20·86; p<0·0001); the mean change in utility score also differed significantly at recurrence for both groups (dabrafenib plus trametinib -0·0626, 0·1911, p<0·0001; placebo -0·0748, 0·2182, p<0·0001)., Interpretation: These findings show that dabrafenib plus trametinib did not affect patient-reported outcome scores during or after adjuvant treatment, and suggest that preventing or delaying relapse with adjuvant therapy could be beneficial in this setting., Funding: Novartis., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primary findings from the METRIC (TMT212A2301) study demonstrated that trametinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma with a BRAF V600 E/K mutation. However, clinical data characterising the long-term use of these therapies in combination with BRAF inhibitors or as monotherapies are limited., Methods: In this open-label, phase 3 study, 322 patients with BRAF V600 E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to receive trametinib (2 mg orally, once daily; n = 214) or chemotherapy (dacarbazine [1000 mg/m 2 ] or paclitaxel [175 mg/m 2 ] intravenously, every 3 weeks; n = 108). Patients who progressed on chemotherapy were allowed to cross over and receive trametinib. Five-year results of efficacy and safety analyses are reported., Results: The median PFS was 4.9 months in the trametinib arm versus 1.5 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.73). Landmark OS rates for trametinib versus chemotherapy arms at 1 year, 2 years and 5 years were 60.9% versus 49.6%, 32.0% versus 29.4% and 13.3% versus 17.0%, respectively. Most patients (n = 70 [65%]) from the chemotherapy arm crossed over to the trametinib arm early in their treatment. No unexpected adverse events were reported., Conclusions: This 5-year follow-up of patients with BRAF V600 E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma on a targeted therapy demonstrates that long-term use of trametinib is possible with no new or unexpected adverse events. Some patients experienced long-term survival benefit with trametinib monotherapy (METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The effect of repeat oral supratherapeutic dosing of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib on QTc interval was assessed in patients with BRAF V600-mutant tumours., Methods: Part 1 of this phase 1, multicentre, 2-part study (BRF113773/NCT01738451) assessed safety/tolerability of dabrafenib 225 or 300 mg twice daily (BID) to inform part 2 dosing. Patients in part 2 received dabrafenib-matched placebo on day -1, single-dose dabrafenib 300 mg on day 1, 300 mg BID on days 2 to 7, and 300 mg on day 8 (morning), followed by 24-h Holter electrocardiographic monitoring and pharmacokinetics sample collection each dose day. Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics analysis assessed combined dabrafenib and metabolite effects on QTc interval., Results: Part 1 (n = 12) determined supratherapeutic dosing, 300 mg BID, for part 2. Thirty-one patients completed part 2. Mean maximum ΔΔQTcF occurred on day 8, 10 h postdose (2.86 msec; 90% CI, -1.36 to 7.07). Categorical analysis showed no placebo and dabrafenib outliers (increase >60 msec; QTcF >500 msec). Day 1 dabrafenib 300 mg C max and AUC (0-∞) were ≈ 2-fold higher than with single-dose 150 mg. Day 8 AUC (0-τ) with 300 mg BID was ≈ 2.7-fold higher than with 150 mg BID. Dabrafenib metabolites showed similar trends. Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics modelling/simulation showed that median QTc increase was <5 msec (upper 90% CI, <10 msec). No unexpected toxicities occurred with supratherapeutic dosing., Conclusion: Repeat oral supratherapeutic dabrafenib 300 mg BID dosing had no clinically relevant effect on QTc interval, with no new safety signals seen., (© 2017 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Although BRAF inhibitor monotherapy yields response rates >50% in BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma, only approximately 5% of patients with BRAF V600E colorectal cancer respond. Preclinical studies suggest that the lack of efficacy in BRAF V600E colorectal cancer is due to adaptive feedback reactivation of MAPK signaling, often mediated by EGFR. This clinical trial evaluated BRAF and EGFR inhibition with dabrafenib (D) + panitumumab (P) ± MEK inhibition with trametinib (T) to achieve greater MAPK suppression and improved efficacy in 142 patients with BRAF V600E colorectal cancer. Confirmed response rates for D+P, D+T+P, and T+P were 10%, 21%, and 0%, respectively. Pharmacodynamic analysis of paired pretreatment and on-treatment biopsies found that efficacy of D+T+P correlated with increased MAPK suppression. Serial cell-free DNA analysis revealed additional correlates of response and emergence of KRAS and NRAS mutations on disease progression. Thus, targeting adaptive feedback pathways in BRAF V600E colorectal cancer can improve efficacy, but MAPK reactivation remains an important primary and acquired resistance mechanism. Significance: This trial demonstrates that combined BRAF + EGFR + MEK inhibition is tolerable, with promising activity in patients with BRAF V600E colorectal cancer. Our findings highlight the MAPK pathway as a critical target in BRAF V600E colorectal cancer and the need to optimize strategies inhibiting this pathway to overcome both primary and acquired resistance. Cancer Discov; 8(4); 428-43. ©2018 AACR. See related commentary by Janku, p. 389 See related article by Hazar-Rethinam et al., p. 417 This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 371 ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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

Purpose We report the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor) combination therapy in BRAF V600E-mutated anaplastic thyroid cancer, a rare, aggressive, and highly lethal malignancy with poor patient outcomes and no systemic therapies with clinical benefit. Methods In this phase II, open-label trial, patients with predefined BRAF V600E-mutated malignancies received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg once daily until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or death. The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate. Secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Results Sixteen patients with BRAF V600E-mutated anaplastic thyroid cancer were evaluable (median follow-up, 47 weeks; range, 4 to 120 weeks). All patients had received prior radiation treatment and/or surgery, and six had received prior systemic therapy. The confirmed overall response rate was 69% (11 of 16; 95% CI, 41% to 89%), with seven ongoing responses. Median duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival were not reached as a result of a lack of events, with 12-month estimates of 90%, 79%, and 80%, respectively. The safety population was composed of 100 patients who were enrolled with seven rare tumor histologies. Common adverse events were fatigue (38%), pyrexia (37%), and nausea (35%). No new safety signals were detected. Conclusion Dabrafenib plus trametinib is the first regimen demonstrated to have robust clinical activity in BRAF V600E-mutated anaplastic thyroid cancer and was well tolerated. These findings represent a meaningful therapeutic advance for this orphan disease.

Background: Combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib plus the MEK inhibitor trametinib improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. We sought to determine whether adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib would improve outcomes in patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations., Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 870 patients with completely resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive oral dabrafenib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib at a dose of 2 mg once daily (combination therapy, 438 patients) or two matched placebo tablets (432 patients) for 12 months. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, freedom from relapse, and safety., Results: At a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the estimated 3-year rate of relapse-free survival was 58% in the combination-therapy group and 39% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.58; P<0.001). The 3-year overall survival rate was 86% in the combination-therapy group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.79; P=0.0006), but this level of improvement did not cross the prespecified interim analysis boundary of P=0.000019. Rates of distant metastasis-free survival and freedom from relapse were also higher in the combination-therapy group than in the placebo group. The safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib was consistent with that observed with the combination in patients with metastatic melanoma., Conclusions: Adjuvant use of combination therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a significantly lower risk of recurrence in patients with stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations than the adjuvant use of placebo and was not associated with new toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01682083 ; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15 .).

Background: BRAF V600E mutation occurs in 1-2% of lung adenocarcinomas and acts as an oncogenic driver. Dabrafenib, alone or combined with trametinib, has shown substantial antitumour activity in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E -mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the activity and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib treatment in previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E -mutant metastatic NSCLC., Methods: In this phase 2, sequentially enrolled, multicohort, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, adults (≥18 years of age) with previously untreated metastatic BRAF V600E -mutant NSCLC were enrolled into cohort C from 19 centres in eight countries within North America, Europe, and Asia. Patients received oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice per day plus oral trametinib 2 mg once per day until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, consent withdrawal, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, defined as the percentage of patients who achieved a confirmed complete response or partial response per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary and safety analyses were by intention to treat in the protocol-defined population (previously untreated patients). The study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336634., Findings: Between April 16, 2014, and Dec 28, 2015, 36 patients were enrolled and treated with first-line dabrafenib plus trametinib. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 7·8-22·0) at the data cutoff (April 28, 2017). The proportion of patients with investigator-assessed confirmed overall response was 23 (64%, 95% CI 46-79), with two (6%) patients achieving a complete response and 21 (58%) a partial response. All patients had one or more adverse event of any grade, and 25 (69%) had one or more grade 3 or 4 event. The most common (occurring in more than two patients) grade 3 or 4 adverse events were pyrexia (four [11%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (four [11%]), hypertension (four [11%]), and vomiting (three [8%]). Serious adverse events occurring in more than two patients included alanine aminotransferase increase (five [14%]), pyrexia (four [11%]), aspartate aminotransferase increase (three [8%]), and ejection fraction decrease (three [8%]). One fatal serious adverse event deemed unrelated to study treatment was reported (cardiorespiratory arrest)., Interpretation: Dabrafenib plus trametinib represents a new therapy with clinically meaningful antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E -mutant NSCLC., Funding: Novartis., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: Dabrafenib plus trametinib improves clinical outcomes in BRAF V600 -mutant metastatic melanoma without brain metastases; however, the activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib has not been studied in active melanoma brain metastases. Here, we report results from the phase 2 COMBI-MB trial. Our aim was to build on the current body of evidence of targeted therapy in melanoma brain metastases through an evaluation of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma brain metastases., Methods: This ongoing, multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study evaluated oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice per day) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once per day) in four patient cohorts with melanoma brain metastases enrolled from 32 hospitals and institutions in Europe, North America, and Australia: (A) BRAF V600E -positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with no previous local brain therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; (B) BRAF V600E -positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; (C) BRAF V600D/K/R -positive, asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; and (D) BRAF V600D/E/K/R -positive, symptomatic melanoma brain metastases, with or without previous local brain therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0, 1, or 2. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed intracranial response in cohort A in the all-treated-patients population. Secondary endpoints included intracranial response in cohorts B, C, and D. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02039947., Findings: Between Feb 28, 2014, and Aug 5, 2016, 125 patients were enrolled in the study: 76 patients in cohort A; 16 patients in cohort B; 16 patients in cohort C; and 17 patients in cohort D. At the data cutoff (Nov 28, 2016) after a median follow-up of 8·5 months (IQR 5·5-14·0), 44 (58%; 95% CI 46-69) of 76 patients in cohort A achieved an intracranial response. Intracranial response by investigator assessment was also achieved in nine (56%; 95% CI 30-80) of 16 patients in cohort B, seven (44%; 20-70) of 16 patients in cohort C, and ten (59%; 33-82) of 17 patients in cohort D. The most common serious adverse events related to study treatment were pyrexia for dabrafenib (eight [6%] of 125 patients) and decreased ejection fraction (five [4%]) for trametinib. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of study drug relationship, were pyrexia (four [3%] of 125) and headache (three [2%])., Interpretation: Dabrafenib plus trametinib was active with a manageable safety profile in this melanoma population that was consistent with previous dabrafenib plus trametinib studies in patients with BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma without brain metastases, but the median duration of response was relatively short. These results provide evidence of clinical benefit with dabrafenib plus trametinib and support the need for additional research to further improve outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases., Funding: Novartis., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients., Patients and Methods: This double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics., Results: Between 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use., Conclusions: These data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Objectives: This two-part study evaluated trametinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in combination with anticancer agents. Inhibition of MEK, a downstream effector of KRAS, demonstrated preclinical synergy with chemotherapy in KRAS-mutant NSCLC cell lines. Part 1 of this study identified recommended phase 2 doses of trametinib combinations. Part 2, reported herein, evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of trametinib combinations in patients with NSCLC with and without KRAS mutations., Methods: Phase 1b evaluated trametinib plus docetaxel with growth factor support (trametinib, 2.0 mg once daily, and docetaxel, 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks) or pemetrexed (trametinib, 1.5 mg once daily, and pemetrexed, 500 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks). Eligibility criteria for the expansion cohorts included metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, known KRAS mutation status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or lower, and no more than two prior regimens., Results: The primary end point of overall response rate (ORR) was met for both combinations. A confirmed partial response (PR) was observed in 10 of the 47 patients with NSCLC who received trametinib plus docetaxel (21%). The ORR was 18% (four PRs in 22 patients) in those with KRAS wild-type NSCLC versus 24% (six PRs in 25 patients) in those with KRAS-mutant NSCLC. Of the 42 patients with NSCLC treated with trametinib plus pemetrexed, six (14%) had a PR; the ORR was 17% (four of 23) in patients with KRAS-mutated NSCLC versus 11% (two of 19) in KRAS wild-type NSCLC. Adverse events-most commonly diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue-were manageable., Conclusions: Trametinib-plus-chemotherapy combinations were tolerable. Clinical activity exceeding the ORRs previously reported with docetaxel or pemetrexed alone in KRAS-mutated NSCLC and meeting prespecified criteria was observed., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: BRAF mutations act as an oncogenic driver via the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BRAF inhibition has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC. Dual MAPK pathway inhibition with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC might improve efficacy over BRAF inhibitor monotherapy based on observations in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma. We aimed to assess the antitumour activity and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC., Methods: In this phase 2, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, we enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pretreated metastatic stage IV BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC who had documented tumour progression after at least one previous platinum-based chemotherapy and had had no more than three previous systemic anticancer therapies. Patients with previous BRAF or MEK inhibitor treatment were ineligible. Patients with brain metastases were allowed to enrol only if the lesions were asymptomatic, untreated (or stable more than 3 weeks after local therapy if treated), and measured less than 1 cm. Enrolled patients received oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) in continuous 21-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, which was assessed by intention to treat in the protocol-defined population (patients who received second-line or later treatment); safety was also assessed in this population and was assessed at least once every 3 weeks, with adverse events, laboratory values, and vital signs graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The study is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336634., Findings: Between Dec 20, 2013, and Jan 14, 2015, 59 patients from 30 centres in nine countries across North America, Europe, and Asia met eligibility criteria. Two patients who had previously been untreated due to protocol deviation were excluded; thus, 57 eligible patients were enrolled. 36 patients (63·2% [95% CI 49·3-75·6]) achieved an investigator-assessed overall response. Serious adverse events were reported in 32 (56%) of 57 patients and included pyrexia in nine (16%), anaemia in three (5%), confusional state in two (4%), decreased appetite in two (4%), haemoptysis in two (4%), hypercalcaemia in two (4%), nausea in two (4%), and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in two (4%). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia in five patients (9%), hyponatraemia in four (7%), and anaemia in three (5%). Four patients died during the study from fatal adverse events judged to be unrelated to treatment (one retroperitoneal haemorrhage, one subarachnoid haemorrhage, one respiratory distress, and one from disease progression that was more severe than typical progression, as assessed by the investigator)., Interpretation: Dabrafenib plus trametinib could represent a new targeted therapy with robust antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DP acts as an advisor for AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi and has received research funding from Novartis unrelated to the current trial. BB’s institution received a grant from Novartis for this study. HJMG’s institution has received payments from Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche. P-JS has been involved in clinical trials for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. EQ has received personal fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche, has received grants from Amgen, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, and Roche, and has received non-financial support from Boehringer. CSB’s institution received a grant for this study from Novartis and CSB has received personal fees from Novartis. FB has received personal fees from Novartis. SN has received personal fees from Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche. AU, PZ, AD’A, and BM are currently employees of Novartis. AD’A and BM were employees of GlaxoSmithKline during a portion of the study. AD’A and BM own stock in GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis and BM owns stock in Incyte and AstraZeneca. BEJ has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Clovis, Genentech, KEW Group, Merck, and Novartis, and shares of post-market revenue for an EGFR genotyping patent. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Activating BRAF(V600E) (Val600Glu) mutations are found in about 1-2% of lung adenocarcinomas, which might provide an opportunity for targeted treatment in these patients. Dabrafenib is an oral selective inhibitor of BRAF kinase. We did a trial to assess the clinical activity of dabrafenib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for the BRAF(V600E) mutation., Methods: In this phase 2, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, we enrolled previously treated and untreated patients with stage IV metastatic BRAF(V600E)-positive NSCLC. Patients received oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, which was assessed in patients who had received at least one dose of dabrafenib; safety was also assessed in this population. The study is ongoing but not enrolling patients in this cohort. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336634., Findings: Between Aug 3, 2011, and Feb 25, 2014, 84 patients were enrolled, six of whom had not previously received systemic treatment for NSCLC. 26 of the 78 previously treated patients achieved an investigator-assessed overall response (33% [95% CI 23-45]). Four of the six previously untreated patients had an objective response. One patient died from an intracranial haemorrhage that was judged by the investigator to be due to the study drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 35 (42%) of 84 patients. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma in ten (12%), asthenia in four (5%), and basal-cell carcinoma in four (5%)., Interpretation: Dabrafenib showed clinical activity in BRAF(V600E)-positive NSCLC. Our findings suggest that dabrafenib could represent a treatment option for a population of patients with limited therapeutic options., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DP reports advisory role for Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Boehinger, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MSD and Pierre Fabre. GR reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; consulting with Novartis; and employer receives research funding from Pfizer, Chugai/Roche and Millennium for support of research led by him. FB reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. P-J Souquet reports clinical trial for GlaxoSmithKline. HJMG reports payments to his institution from Roche, MSD, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. LP at the time of the study, was an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. CN reports employment at GlaxoSmithKline at the time the study was conducted, former employment at Novartis and current employment at GlaxoSmithKline. B. Ma reports employment at GlaxoSmithKline at the time the study was conducted. AD, at the time of the study, was an employee of GlaxoSmithKline, is now an employee of Novartis. B Mookerjee, at the time of the study, was an employee of GlaxoSmithKline, is now an employee of Novartis; and owns stock in GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. CMC was an employee of Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline. BEJ reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Novartis, Merck, Genentech; honoraria from Chugai Pharmaceuticals; received shares of post-market revenue for EGFR Genotyping patent. TMK, JM, EQ, EFS, RJK, BCC, and MAS report nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Pyrexia is a common adverse event (AE) on dabrafenib treatment (monotherapy or combination with trametinib). Since germline SNPs and HLA alleles are implicated in drug-induced AEs, this study investigated their association with pyrexia., Patients & Methods: 1006 melanoma subjects from five dabrafenib-trametinib clinical studies underwent genotyping for genome-wide SNPs, which enabled imputation of 150 HLA alleles. SNP/HLA allele frequencies were compared between pyrexia cases (n = 218) and controls (n = 361) out of the 1006 subjects by meta-analysis., Results: This analysis had adequate power to detect association of common SNPs or HLA alleles with moderate to large effects on pyrexia (odds ratio >6), but no significant association was found., Conclusion: The study suggests that common genetic variation or HLA polymorphisms do not contribute substantially to dabrafenib-induced pyrexia.

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

Background: Previously, a study of ours showed that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib improves progression-free survival compared with dabrafenib and placebo in patients with BRAF Val600Lys/Glu mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. The study was continued to assess the secondary endpoint of overall survival, which we report in this Article., Methods: We did this double-blind phase 3 study at 113 sites in 14 countries. We enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Participants were computer-randomised (1:1) to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily), or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and overall survival was a secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01584648., Findings: Between May 4, 2012, and Nov 30, 2012, we screened 947 patients for eligibility, of whom 423 were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib and trametinib (n=211) or dabrafenib only (n=212). The final data cutoff was Jan 12, 2015, at which time 222 patients had died. Median overall survival was 25·1 months (95% CI 19·2-not reached) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 18·7 months (15·2-23·7) in the dabrafenib only group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·55-0·92; p=0·0107). Overall survival was 74% at 1 year and 51% at 2 years in the dabrafenib and trametinib group versus 68% and 42%, respectively, in the dabrafenib only group. Based on 301 events, median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 8·0-13·9) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 8·8 months (5·9-9·3) in the dabrafenib only group (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·53-0·84; p=0·0004; unadjusted for multiple testing). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 181 (87%) of 209 patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 189 (90%) of 211 patients in the dabrafenib only group; the most common was pyrexia (108 patients, 52%) in the dabrafenib and trametinib group, and hyperkeratosis (70 patients, 33%) in the dabrafenib only group. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 67 (32%) patients in the dabrafenib and trametinib group and 66 (31%) patients in the dabrafenib only group., Interpretation: The improvement in overall survival establishes the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib as the standard targeted treatment for BRAF Val600 mutation-positive melanoma. Studies assessing dabrafenib and trametinib in combination with immunotherapies are ongoing., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm associated with somatic gain-of-function mutations of Janus kinase-2 (JAK2). Therapeutic options are limited in patients with advanced disease. Ruxolitinib, an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, is active in preclinical models of PV. The long-term efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in patients with advanced PV who are refractory or intolerant to hydroxyurea were studied in a phase 2 trial., Methods: Response was assessed using modified European LeukemiaNet criteria, which included a reduction in hematocrit to <45% without phlebotomy, resolution of palpable splenomegaly, normalization of white blood cell and platelet counts, and reduction in PV-associated symptoms., Results: Thirty-four patients received ruxolitinib for a median of 152 weeks (range, 31 weeks-177 weeks) or 35.0 months (range, 7.1 months-40.7 months). Hematocrit <45% without phlebotomy was achieved in 97% of patients by week 24.Only 1 patient required a phlebotomy after week 4. Among patients with palpable splenomegaly at baseline, 44% and 63%, respectively, achieved nonpalpable spleen measurements at weeks 24 and 144. Clinically meaningful improvements in pruritus, night sweats, and bone pain were observed within 4 weeks of the initiation of therapy and maintained with continued treatment. Ruxolitinib treatment also reduced elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines and granulocyte activation. Thrombocytopenia and anemia were the most common adverse events.Thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or anemia of grade 3 (according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events,version 3.0) occurred in 3 patients each (9%) (1 patient had both) and were managed with dose modification., Conclusions: Ruxolitinib was generally well tolerated and provided rapid and durable clinical benefits in patients with advanced PV who were refractory or intolerant to hydroxyurea.

Hormone receptor-positive breast cancer is treated with estrogen inhibitors. Fulvestrant (FASLODEX™), an estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist with no known agonist effects, competitively binds, blocks and degrades the ER. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) may mediate resistance to ER antagonists. Cediranib is a highly potent VEGF signaling inhibitor with activity against all three VEGF receptors. This randomized Phase II study evaluated cediranib plus fulvestrant. Postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, clinical benefit rate (CBR), safety/tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK). Patients received cediranib 45 mg/day (n=31) or placebo (n=31) both plus fulvestrant. Demographic/baseline characteristics were well balanced. Patients treated with cediranib had a numerical advantage in PFS (hazard ratio=0.867, P=0.669; median 223 vs. 112 days, respectively) and ORR (22 vs. 8 %, respectively) vs. placebo, although not statistically significant. CBR was 42 % in both arms. The most common adverse events (AEs) in the cediranib arm were diarrhea (68 %), fatigue (61 %) and hypertension (55 %). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs (68 % vs. 32 %), serious AEs (48 % vs. 13 %), discontinuation AEs (39 % vs. 10 %), and cediranib dose reductions/interruptions (74 % vs. 32 %) were higher in the cediranib arm. There was no evidence of a clinically relevant effect of cediranib on fulvestrant PK. Cediranib plus fulvestrant may demonstrate clinical activity in this population, but cediranib 45 mg was not sufficiently well tolerated. Investigation of lower doses of cediranib plus hormonal/chemotherapy could be considered.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of cediranib (a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor [VEGFR TKI]) with that of bevacizumab (anti-VEGF-A monoclonal antibody) in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Patients and Methods: HORIZON III [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] had an adaptive phase II/III design. Patients randomly assigned 1:1:1 received mFOLFOX6 [oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) and leucovorin 400 mg/m(2) intravenously followed by fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 and then continuous infusion of 2,400 mg/m(2) over the next 46 hours every 2 weeks] with cediranib (20 or 30 mg per day) or bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 14 days). An independent end-of-phase II analysis concluded that mFOLFOX6/cediranib 20 mg met predefined criteria for continuation; subsequent patients received mFOLFOX6/cediranib 20 mg or mFOLFOX6/bevacizumab (randomly assigned 1:1). The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: In all, 1,422 patients received mFOLFOX6/cediranib 20 mg (n = 709) or mFOLFOX6/bevacizumab (n = 713). Primary analysis revealed no significant difference between arms for PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.25; P = .119), overall survival (OS; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.10; P = .541), or overall response rate (46.3% v 47.3%). Median PFS and OS were 9.9 and 22.8 months for mFOLFOX6/cediranib and 10.3 and 21.3 months for mFOLFOX6/bevacizumab. The PFS upper 95% CI was outside the predefined noninferiority limit (HR < 1.2). Common adverse events with more than 5% incidence in the cediranib arm included diarrhea, neutropenia, and hypertension. Cediranib-treated patients completed fewer chemotherapy cycles than bevacizumab-treated patients (median 10 v 12 cycles). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were significantly less favorable in cediranib-treated versus bevacizumab-treated patients (P < .001)., Conclusion: Cediranib activity, in terms of PFS and OS, was comparable to that of bevacizumab when added to mFOLFOX6; however, the predefined boundary for PFS noninferiority was not met. The cediranib safety profile was consistent with previous studies but led to less favorable PROs compared with bevacizumab. Investigation of oral TKIs in CRC continues.

Background: Cediranib is a highly potent vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling inhibitor with activity against VEGF receptors 1, 2 and 3. This Phase II, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the efficacy of cediranib with placebo in patients with metastatic or recurrent clear cell renal cell carcinoma who had not previously received a VEGF signalling inhibitor., Methods: Patients were randomised (3:1) to cediranib 45 mg/day or placebo. The primary objective was comparison of change from baseline in tumour size after 12 weeks of therapy. Secondary objectives included response rate and duration, progression-free survival (PFS) and safety and tolerability. Patients in the placebo group could cross over to open-label cediranib at 12 weeks or earlier if their disease had progressed. This study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00423332., Findings: Patients (n=71) were randomised to receive cediranib (n=53) or placebo (n=18). The primary study outcome revealed that, after 12weeks of therapy, there was a significant difference in mean percentage change from baseline in tumour size between the cediranib (-20%) and placebo (+20%) arms (p<0.0001). Eighteen patients (34%) on cediranib achieved a partial response and 25 (47%) experienced stable disease. Cediranib treatment prolonged PFS significantly compared with placebo (hazard ratio (HR)=0.45, 90%confidence interval: 0.26-0.76, p=0.017; median PFS 12.1 versus 2.8 months). The most common adverse events in patients receiving cediranib were diarrhoea (74%), hypertension (64%), fatigue (58%) and dysphonia (58%)., Interpretation: Cediranib monotherapy demonstrated significant evidence of antitumour activity in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. The adverse event profile was consistent with previous studies of cediranib 45 mg., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Studies of haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) have identified threshold doses of T cells below which severe GVHD is usually absent. However, little is known regarding optimal T-cell dosing as it relates to engraftment, immune reconstitution, and relapse. To begin to address this question, we developed a 2-step myeloablative approach to haploidentical HSCT in which 27 patients conditioned with total body irradiation (TBI) were given a fixed dose of donor T cells (HSCT step 1), followed by cyclophosphamide (CY) for T-cell tolerization. A CD34-selected HSC product (HSCT step 2) was infused after CY. A dose of 2 × 10(8)/kg of T cells resulted in consistent engraftment, immune reconstitution, and acceptable rates of GVHD. Cumulative incidences of grade III-IV GVHD, nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and relapse-related mortality were 7.4%, 22.2%, and 29.6%, respectively. With a follow-up of 28-56 months, the 3-year probability of overall survival for the whole cohort is 48% and 75% in patients without disease at HSCT. In the context of CY tolerization, a high, fixed dose of haploidentical T cells was associated with encouraging outcomes, especially in good-risk patients, and can serve as the basis for further exploration and optimization of this 2-step approach. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00429143.

Although allogeneic hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant (HPCT) is curative therapy for many disorders, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which can be related to graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and the immunosuppressive measures required for its prevention and/or treatment. Whether the immunosuppression is pharmacologic or secondary to graft manipulation, the graft recipient is left at increased risk of the threatening opportunistic infection. Refractory viral diseases in the immunocompromised host have been treated by infusion of virus-specific lymphotyces and by unmanipulated donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) therapy. L-leucyl-L-leucine methyl ester (LLME) is a compound that induces programmed cell death of natural killer (NK) cells, monocytes, granulocytes, most CD8(+) T cells, and a small fraction of CD4(+) T cells. We have undertaken a study of the use of LLME-treated DLI following T cell-depleted allogeneic HPCT, specifically to aid with immune reconstitution. In this ongoing clinical trial, we have demonstrated the rapid emergence of virus-specific responses following LLME DLI with minimal associated GVHD. This paper examines the pace of immune recovery and the rapid development of antiviral responses in 6 patients who developed viral infections during the time period immediately preceding or coincident with the administration of the LLME DLI.

Donor lymphocytes have potential as a treatment for adenovirus (Ad) disease in haematopoietic stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients, but better understanding of Ad-specific T-cell responses is required. Most healthy adults exhibit memory T-cell responses to hexon, a capsid protein synthesized late after infection. However, since the Ad E3-19k downregulates major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules, cytotoxic T cells (CTLs) targeted to early viral proteins may be more effective in eliminating Ad-infected cells in vivo. Here we show that Ad-specific CTLs recognize the early region 2 proteins DNA polymerase (Pol) and DNA-binding protein (DBP). Firstly, memory Ad-specific CD8(+) T cells were amplified from healthy donors by in vitro stimulation with Ad-infected dendritic cells and found to exhibit MHC-restricted cytotoxicity to targets expressing Pol and DBP. Secondly, gamma interferon responses to HLA A2-binding motif peptides from Pol and DBP were directly detected in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from a recently infected normal donor. Peptide-specific CTLs generated to Pol and DBP epitopes were confirmed to exhibit HLA A2-restricted killing of targets expressing Pol or DBP. Lastly, Pol-epitope-specific T cells were detected at similar or higher frequencies than hexon and DBP in three of three SCT recipients recovering from invasive Ad disease. Pol epitopes were well conserved among different Ad serotypes. Therefore, Pol is a promising target for immunotherapy of Ad disease.

The generation of melanoma-reactive T cells with the characteristics necessary for in vivo effectiveness remains a considerable obstacle to the application of adoptive cell therapy. Recent clinical success with adoptive cell therapy for melanoma is motivating additional investigation to improve the technology of generating such tumor reactive lymphocytes. Here we describe a novel solid phase T-cell selection system, in which monocytes are immobilized on solid support for antigen-specific T-cell purification. We hypothesized and proved that antigen-specific T cells recognize their cognate antigens and bind to them faster than nonantigen-specific T cells and are concentrated on the surface after removing the nonadherent cells by washing. Moreover, activated antigen-specific T cells proliferated more rapidly than nonspecific T cells, further increasing the frequency and purity of antigen-specific T cells. Optimal selection times for Melan-A-specific T cells are studied. Our data demonstrated that T-cell selection can usually increase the frequency of tumor antigen-specific T cells by >10-fold, whereas T-cell expansion after the selection boost the frequency of tumor antigen-specific T cells by another approximately 10-fold. More importantly, these T cells are generated under more physiologic conditions. This new T-cell selection system is superior to traditional repeated stimulation methods in generating tumor antigen-specific T cells for adoptive cell immunotherapy. This inexpensive and simple T-cell selection system can produce large quantity of highly purified Melan-A-specific T cells within 2 weeks after T-cell activation.

Adoptive cell transfer immunotherapy has been utilized to treat EBV related human malignancies including post-transplant lymphoproliferative diseases, Hodgkin's lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma. However, there are limited options available for tumor antigen-specific T cell purification. Here we describe a novel solid phase T cell selection system, in which monocytes or EBV transformed B-lymphocytes are immobilized on solid support for antigen-specific T cell purification. We hypothesize and prove that antigen-specific T cells recognize their cognate antigens and bind to them faster than non-antigen specific T cells. Therefore antigen-specific T cells can be concentrated on the surface after removing the non-adherent cells by washing. The optimal selection time for both EBV-specific T cells and LMP2-specific T cells is studied. Our data demonstrate that the frequency of antigen-specific T cells can be increased by >20-fold after selection. Moreover, activated antigen-specific T cells proliferate more rapidly than non-specific T cells, further increasing the frequency and purity of antigen-specific T cells. This new T cell selection system is superior to traditional repeated stimulation methods in generating tumor antigen-specific T cells. We are able to generate large quantities of highly purified T cells of subdominant antigens LMP2 within 2 weeks after T cell activation for adoptive cell transfer immunotherapy with this simple, rapid and inexpensive T cell selection system.

Slow reconstitution of the T cell repertoire after allogeneic blood or bone marrow stem cell transplantation is a major risk factor for patient mortality. The delivery of immunocompetent T cells as delayed donor lymphocyte infusions (DLIs) is a potential way of counteracting this problem. The development of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a potential complication of this procedure, however. We previously found that in P-->F1 haploidentical murine models, the ex-vivo treatment of donor lymphocytes with L-leucyl-L-leucine methyl ester (LLME) can prevent the onset of GVHD after DLI, likely by inducing cell death in most of the perforin-positive CD8(+) T cells and in a fraction of CD4(+) T cells. Our previous preclinical studies have formed the basis of an ongoing phase I clinical trial in which patients received LLME-treated DLI from their original donor in an attempt to accelerate T cell reconstitution. To understand how this treatment strategy might affect the complexity of the DLI T cell repertoire, we used T cell receptor Vbeta spectratype analysis to evaluate the DLI product pre-LLME and post-LLME treatment. The results indicated that the LLME-treated DLI product exhibited CDR3-size distribution complexities similar to those of its untreated donor sample. In addition, comparisons of the CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell repertoire from the donor before LLME treatment with that of the recipient post-DLI demonstrated equal complexity for most of the resolvable Vbeta families. Finally, the in vitro proliferative capacity of LLME-treated DLI product in response to allo-stimulation in a one-way mixed lymphocyte reaction was comparable to that of the untreated product.

Invasive adenovirus (AdV) disease is fatal in >50% of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients. Treatment with cidofovir may improve outcomes based on in vitro susceptibility data and case reports. Six consecutive cases of invasive AdV disease treated with cidofovir were reviewed among 84 allogeneic adult SCT recipients (incidence, 7.1%). Cidofovir was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg per dose (1-7 doses). All patients received intravenous immune globulin. Blood AdV DNA levels (viral loads, VLs) were monitored with a real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay. Published reports of cidofovir treatment of AdV disease in SCT recipients were critically reviewed. The primary manifestations of AdV disease were hepatitis (n = 3), colitis (n = 2), and nephritis (n = 1). All patients had detectable AdV VLs, with peak values from 5 x 10(5) to 2 x 10(8) copies/mL. All patients received CD34+ selected grafts (n = 3) and/or had graft-versus-host disease (n = 4) and had CD4 counts <100 cells/mm3. Only 1 of 5 patients (20%) who received >or=2 doses of cidofovir died with active AdV disease. Four patients exhibited improvement within days of treatment with cidofovir as documented by clinical criteria and declines in AdV VLs (without a change in immunosuppression). In contrast, 1 patient treated late after onset of AdV disease died after 1 dose of cidofovir. In our review of 70 published cases treated with >or=2 doses of cidofovir, 13 (19%) died from AdV disease. In conclusion, early treatment of AdV disease with cidofovir inhibits viral replication in vivo and reduces mortality in allogeneic SCT recipients compared with historical data.

Planning therapy for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) is difficult because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease and varying patient age at presentation. Cytogenetics and patient age at the time of diagnosis are two major factors determining treatment outcome in AML. Patients with poor-risk cytogenetics have much lower complete remission rates than other groups. In addition, AML in patients greater than 55 to 60 years of age often exhibits a resistant phenotype, more akin to secondary AML or AML arising from myelodysplastic syndromes. This group is also characterized by lower complete remission rates, and often requires the delivery of intensive therapy to a patient population that is the least likely to tolerate it. At the Jefferson Health System (Philadelphia, PA), we wished to develop a regimen that was maximally intensive to treat stubborn disease, but gentle enough to be given to all patients regardless of age. Toward this end, 33 patients received a maximal dose of the cytoprotective agent, amifostine, before each infusion of idarubicin in the "7 + 3" regimen, escalating the dose of idarubicin in a phase I fashion to a maximum dose of 24 mg/m2 . The data indicate that the addition of amifostine to "7 + 3" AML induction therapy enables a substantial escalation of the idarubicin dose through the 21-mg/m2 dose level, without a concomitant increase in side effects, thus providing a regimen that is both intensive and applicable to patients of all ages. Currently, phase II studies are ongoing on a national basis to evaluate the efficacy of this regimen.

High-dose chemotherapy using melphalan (HDMEL) is an important component of many conditioning regimens that are given before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). In contrast to the situation in myeloma, and to a lesser degree acute leukemia, only a very limited published experience exists with the use of HDMEL conditioning as a single agent in doses requiring AHSCT for lymphoma, both Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and especially non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Thus, we report results of treating 26 lymphoma patients (22 with NHL and four with HL) with HDMEL 220-300 mg/m(2) plus amifostine (AF) cytoprotection and AHSCT as part of a phase I-II trial. Median age was 51 years (range 24-62 years); NHL histology was varied, but was aggressive (including transformed from indolent) in 19 patients, indolent in two patients and mantle cell in one. All 26 patients had been extensively treated; 11 were refractory to the immediate prior therapy on protocol entry and two had undergone prior AHSCT. All were deemed ineligible for other, 'first-line' AHSCT regimens. Of these 26 patients, 22 survived to initial tumor evaluation on D +100. At this time, 13 were in complete remission, including four patients who were in second CR before HDMEL+AF+AHSCT. Responses occurred at all HDMEL doses. Currently, seven patients are alive, including five without progression, with a median follow-up in these latter patients of D +1163 (range D +824 to D +1630); one of these patients had a nonmyeloablative allograft as consolidation on D +106. Conversely, 14 patients relapsed or progressed, including five who had previously achieved CR with the AHSCT procedure. Two patients, both with HL, remain alive after progression; one is in CR following salvage radiotherapy. Six patients died due to nonrelapse causes, including two NHL patients who died while in CR. We conclude that HDMEL+AF+AHSCT has significant single-agent activity in relapsed or refractory NHL and HL. This experience may be used as a starting point for subsequent dose escalation of HDMEL (probably with AF) in established combination regimens.

Disease relapse occurs in 50% or more of patients who are autografted for relapsed or refractory lymphoma (NHL) or Hodgkin's disease (HD). The administration of non-cross-resistant therapies during the post-transplant phase could possibly control residual disease and delay or prevent its progression. To test this approach, 55 patients with relapsed/refractory or high-risk NHL or relapsed/refractory HD were enrolled in the following protocol: stem cell mobilization: cyclophosphamide (4.5 g/m(2)) + etoposide (2.0 g/m(2)) followed by GM-CSF or G-CSF; high-dose therapy: gemcitabine (1.0 g/m(2)) on day -5, BCNU (300 mg/m(2)) + gemcitabine (1.0 g/m(2)) on day -2, melphalan (140 mg/m(2)) on day -1, blood stem cell infusion on day 0; post-transplant immunotherapy (B cell NHL): rituxan (375 mg/m(2)) weekly for 4 weeks + GM-CSF (250 microg thrice weekly) (weeks 4-8); post-transplant involved-field radiotherapy (HD): 30-40 Gy to pre-transplant areas of disease (weeks 4-8); post-transplant consolidation chemotherapy (all patients): dexamethasone (40 mg daily)/cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m(2)/day)/etoposide (30 mg/m(2)/day)/cisplatin (15 mg/m(2)/day) by continuous intravenous infusion for 4 days + gemcitabine (1.0 g/m(2), day 3) (months 3 + 9) alternating with dexamethasone/paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2))/cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) (months 6 + 12). Of the 33 patients with B cell lymphoma, 14 had primary refractory disease (42%), 12 had relapsed disease (36%) and seven had high-risk disease in first CR (21%). For the entire group, the 2-year Kaplan-Meier event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 30% and 35%, respectively, while six of 33 patients (18%) died before day 100 from transplant-related complications. The rituxan/GM-CSF phase was well-tolerated by the 26 patients who were treated and led to radiographic responses in seven patients; an eighth patient with a blastic variant of mantle-cell lymphoma had clearance of marrow involvement after rituxan/GM-CSF. Of the 22 patients with relapsed/refractory HD (21 patients) or high-risk T cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (one patient), the 2-year Kaplan-Meier EFS and OS were 70% and 85%, respectively, while two of 22 patients (9%) died before day 100 from transplant-related complications. Eight patients received involved field radiation and seven had radiographic responses within the treatment fields. A total of 72 courses of post-transplant consolidation chemotherapy were administered to 26 of the 55 total patients. Transient grade 3-4 myelosuppression was common and one patient died from neutropenic sepsis, but no patients required an infusion of backup stem cells. After adjustment for known prognostic factors, the EFS for the cohort of HD patients was significantly better than the EFS for an historical cohort of HD patients autografted after BEAC (BCNU/etoposide/cytarabine/cyclophosphamide) without consolidation chemotherapy (P = 0.015). In conclusion, post-transplant consolidation therapy is feasible and well-tolerated for patients autografted for aggressive NHL and HD and may be associated with improved progression-free survival particularly for patients with HD.