Search

BACKGROUND: Study 10, a four-part Phase 1/2 study, evaluated oral rucaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. Here we report the final efficacy and safety results in heavily pretreated patients with ovarian cancer who received rucaparib in Study 10 Parts 2A and 2B. METHODS: Parts 2A and 2B (Phase 2 portions) enrolled patients with relapsed, high-grade, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer who had received 2-4 (Part 2A) or 3-4 (Part 2B) prior chemotherapies. Patients received oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 42 in Part 2A (all had platinum-sensitive disease) and 12 in Part 2B (4 with platinum-sensitive disease; 8 with platinum-resistant disease). ORR was 59.3% (95% CI 45.0-72.4%). The median time to onset of the most common nonhaematological treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was typically early (

PURPOSE: OX40, a receptor transiently expressed by T cells upon antigen recognition, is associated with costimulation of effector T cells and impairment of regulatory T-cell function. This first-in-human study evaluated MOXR0916, a humanized effector-competent agonist IgG1 monoclonal anti-OX40 antibody. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic refractory solid tumors were treated with MOXR0916 intravenously once every 3 weeks (Q3W). A 3+3 dose-escalation stage (0.2-1,200 mg; n = 34) was followed by expansion cohorts at 300 mg (n = 138) for patients with melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer. RESULTS: MOXR0916 was well tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities observed. An MTD was not reached. Most patients (95%) experienced at least one adverse event (AE); 56% of AEs, mostly grade 1-2, were related to MOXR0916. Most common treatment-related AEs included fatigue (17%), diarrhea (8%), myalgia (7%), nausea (6%), decreased appetite (6%), and infusion-related reaction (5%). Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were dose proportional between 80 and 1,200 mg and supported Q3W administration. The recommended expansion dose based on PK and OX40 receptor saturation was 300 mg Q3W. Immune activation and upregulation of PD-L1 was observed in a subset of paired tumor biopsies. One renal cell carcinoma patient experienced a confirmed partial response. Overall, 33% of patients achieved stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although objective responses were rarely observed with MOXR0916 monotherapy, the favorable safety profile and evidence of tumor immune activation in a subset of patients support further investigation in combination with complementary agents such as PD-1/PD-L1 antagonists.

PurposeLower grade gliomas (LGGs) are malignant brain tumors. Current therapy is associated with short- and long-term toxicity. Progression to higher tumor grade is associated with contrast enhancement on MRI. The majority of LGGs harbor mutations in the genes encoding isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 (IDH1/IDH2). Vorasidenib (AG-881) is a first-in-class, brain-penetrant, dual inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 and mutant IDH2 enzymes.Patients and methodsWe conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase I, dose-escalation study of vorasidenib in 93 patients with mutant IDH1/2 (mIDH1/2) solid tumors, including 52 patients with glioma that had recurred or progressed following standard therapy. Vorasidenib was administered orally, once daily, in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Enrollment is complete; this trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02481154.ResultsVorasidenib showed a favorable safety profile in the glioma cohort. Dose-limiting toxicities of elevated transaminases occurred at doses ≥100 mg and were reversible. The protocol-defined objective response rate per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria for LGG in patients with nonenhancing glioma was 18% (one partial response, three minor responses). The median progression-free survival was 36.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.2-40.8] for patients with nonenhancing glioma and 3.6 months (95% CI, 1.8-6.5) for patients with enhancing glioma. Exploratory evaluation of tumor volumes in patients with nonenhancing glioma showed sustained tumor shrinkage in multiple patients.ConclusionsVorasidenib was well tolerated and showed preliminary antitumor activity in patients with recurrent or progressive nonenhancing mIDH LGG.

PurposeDiffuse gliomas are malignant brain tumors that include lower-grade gliomas (LGGs) and glioblastomas. Transformation of low-grade glioma into a higher tumor grade is typically associated with contrast enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging. Mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) gene occur in most LGGs (> 70%). Ivosidenib is an inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) under evaluation in patients with solid tumors.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase I, dose escalation and expansion study of ivosidenib in patients with mIDH1 solid tumors. Ivosidenib was administered orally daily in 28-day cycles.ResultsIn 66 patients with advanced gliomas, ivosidenib was well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicities reported. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached; 500 mg once per day was selected for the expansion cohort. The grade ≥ 3 adverse event rate was 19.7%; 3% (n = 2) were considered treatment related. In patients with nonenhancing glioma (n = 35), the objective response rate was 2.9%, with 1 partial response. Thirty of 35 patients (85.7%) with nonenhancing glioma achieved stable disease compared with 14 of 31 (45.2%) with enhancing glioma. Median progression-free survival was 13.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 33.2 months) and 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.9 months) for the nonenhancing and enhancing glioma cohorts, respectively. In an exploratory analysis, ivosidenib reduced the volume and growth rates of nonenhancing tumors.ConclusionIn patients with mIDH1 advanced glioma, ivosidenib 500 mg once per day was associated with a favorable safety profile, prolonged disease control, and reduced growth of nonenhancing tumors.

Homozygous MTAP deletion occurs in ~15% of cancers, making them vulnerable to decreases in the concentration of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM). AG-270/S095033 is an oral, potent, reversible inhibitor of methionine adenosyltransferase 2 A (MAT2A), the enzyme primarily responsible for the synthesis of SAM. We report results from the first-in-human, phase 1 trial of AG-270/S095033 as monotherapy in patients with advanced malignancies (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03435250). Eligible patients had tumors with homozygous deletion of CDKN2A/MTAP and/or loss of MTAP protein by immunohistochemistry. Patients received AG-270/S095033 once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) in 28-day cycles. The primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of AG-270/S095033. Secondary objectives included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and efficacy. Forty patients were treated with AG-270/S095033. Plasma concentrations of AG-270/S095033 increased with dose. Maximal reductions in plasma SAM concentrations ranged from 54% to 70%. Analysis of paired tumor biopsies showed decreases in levels of symmetrically di-methylated arginine (SDMA) residues. Reversible increases in liver function tests, thrombocytopenia, anemia and fatigue were common treatment-related toxicities. Two partial responses were observed; five additional patients achieved radiographically confirmed stable disease for ≥16 weeks. AG-270/S095033 has a manageable safety profile. Our data provide preliminary evidence of clinical activity and proof-of-mechanism for MAT2A inhibition. AG-270 inhibited the activity of MAT2A and reduced plasma concentrations of SAM by up to 70% in patients with advanced solid tumors. Partial responses were observed in two patients and disease stabilization for ≥4 months was seen in five patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 mutations (mIDH1/2) occur in >70% of low-grade gliomas and secondary glioblastomas, and lead to genetic and epigenetic dysregulation, promoting tumorigenesis. AG-881 is an oral, potent, brain-penetrant inhibitor of mIDH1/2 under phase 1 clinical evaluation in gliomas and other solid tumors. Here we present clinical data from the glioma population. METHODS Patients with recurrent/progressive mIDH1/2 glioma received AG-881 daily in continuous 28-day cycles. A Bayesian model was used for dose escalation. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition: Grade 3 AG-881-related adverse event (AE) in Cycle 1 or by sponsor designation. Blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations. MRI response every 8 weeks by RANO and RANO-LGG criteria. RESULTS As of 28Mar2018, 52 patients with glioma had received AG-881 and 17 (32.7%) remained on treatment. Grade 2/3 = 90.4%; median age = 42.5 years; IDH1/2: 48/3; median no. prior therapies = 2 (range 1–6). Five initial dose levels tested: 25mg (n=6), 50mg (n=5), 100mg (n=10), 200mg (n=14), and 300mg (n=5). To confirm safety and PK, a 10mg dose level was tested (n=6) and 6 additional patients enrolled in the 50mg cohort. Common (>20%) AEs across glioma patients regardless of attribution: ALT increased (44.2%), AST increased (38.5%), headache (34.6%), fatigue (30.8%), nausea (26.9%), seizure (21.2%). Five patients experienced DLTs at 100mg: Grade 2 ALT/AST that resolved to Grade 1 with dose modification (n=4) or discontinuation (n=1). Among the evaluable glioma population: 2% minor response, 75% stable disease, 21% progressive disease, and 2% missing as best overall response. CONCLUSION: Maximum tolerated dose/recommended phase 2 dose was not reached by Bayesian model; clinical team recommendation was to proceed with doses

Purpose We report the first-in-human phase Ia study to our knowledge ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01219699) identifying the maximum tolerated dose and assessing safety and preliminary efficacy of single-agent alpelisib (BYL719), an oral phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase α (PI3Kα)-selective inhibitor. Patients and Methods In the dose-escalation phase, patients with PIK3CA-altered advanced solid tumors received once-daily or twice-daily oral alpelisib on a continuous schedule. In the dose-expansion phase, patients with PIK3CA-altered solid tumors and PIK3CA-wild-type, estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer received alpelisib 400 mg once daily. Results One hundred thirty-four patients received treatment. Alpelisib maximum tolerated doses were established as 400 mg once daily and 150 mg twice daily. Nine patients (13.2%) in the dose-escalation phase had dose-limiting toxicities of hyperglycemia (n = 6), nausea (n = 2), and both hyperglycemia and hypophosphatemia (n = 1). Frequent all-grade, treatment-related adverse events included hyperglycemia (51.5%), nausea (50.0%), decreased appetite (41.8%), diarrhea (40.3%), and vomiting (31.3%). Alpelisib was rapidly absorbed; half-life was 7.6 hours at 400 mg once daily with minimal accumulation. Objective tumor responses were observed at doses ≥ 270 mg once daily; overall response rate was 6.0% (n = 8; one patient with endometrial cancer had a complete response, and seven patients with cervical, breast, endometrial, colon, and rectal cancers had partial responses). Stable disease was achieved in 70 (52.2%) patients and was maintained > 24 weeks in 13 (9.7%) patients; disease control rate (complete and partial responses and stable disease) was 58.2%. In patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer, median progression-free survival was 5.5 months. Frequently mutated genes (≥ 10% tumors) included TP53 (51.3%), APC (23.7%), KRAS (22.4%), ARID1A (13.2%), and FBXW7 (10.5%). Conclusion Alpelisib demonstrated a tolerable safety profile and encouraging preliminary activity in patients with PIK3CA-altered solid tumors, supporting the rationale for selective PI3Kα inhibition in combination with other agents for the treatment of PIK3CA-mutant tumors.

Tumor‐agnostic therapies represent a paradigm shift in oncology by altering the traditional means of characterizing tumors based on their origin or location. Instead, they zero in on specific genetic anomalies responsible for fueling malignant growth. The watershed moment for tumor‐agnostic therapies arrived in 2017, with the US Food and Drug Administration's historic approval of pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor. This milestone marked the marriage of genomics and immunology fields, as an immunotherapeutic agent gained approval based on genomic biomarkers, specifically, microsatellite instability‐high or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). Subsequently, the approval of NTRK inhibitors, designed to combat NTRK gene fusions prevalent in various tumor types, including pediatric cancers and adult solid tumors, further underscored the potential of tumor‐agnostic therapies. The US Food and Drug Administration approvals of targeted therapies (BRAF V600E, RET fusion), immunotherapies (tumor mutational burden ≥10 mutations per megabase, dMMR) and an antibody‐drug conjugate (Her2‐positive–immunohistochemistry 3+ expression) with pan‐cancer efficacy have continued, offering newfound hope to patients grappling with advanced solid tumors that harbor particular biomarkers. In this comprehensive review, the authors delve into the expansive landscape of tissue‐agnostic targets and drugs, shedding light on the rationale underpinning this approach, the hurdles it faces, presently approved therapies, voices from the patient advocacy perspective, and the tantalizing prospects on the horizon. This is a welcome advance in oncology that transcends the boundaries of histology and location to provide personalized options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose This two-part, first-in-human study was initiated in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring genetic alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and the schedule, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of oral BGJ398, a selective FGFR1-3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Patients and Methods Adult patients were treated with escalating dosages of BGJ398 5 to 150 mg once daily or 50 mg twice daily continuously in 28-day cycles. During expansion at the MTD, patients with FGFR1-amplified squamous cell non-small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC; arm 1) or other solid tumors with FGFR genetic alterations (mutations/amplifications/fusions) received BGJ398 daily on a continuous schedule (arm 2), or on a 3-weeks-on/1-week-off schedule (arm 3). Results Data in 132 patients from the escalation and expansion arms are reported (May 15, 2015, cutoff). The MTD, 125 mg daily, was determined on the basis of dose-limiting toxicities in four patients (100 mg, grade 3 aminotransferase elevations [n = 1]; 125 mg, hyperphosphatemia [n = 1]; 150 mg, grade 1 corneal toxicity [n = 1] and grade 3 aminotransferase elevations [n = 1]). Common adverse events in patients treated at the MTD (n = 57) included hyperphosphatemia (82.5%), constipation (50.9%), decreased appetite (45.6%), and stomatitis (45.6%). A similar safety profile was observed using the 3-weeks-on/1-week-off schedule (RP2D). However, adverse event-related dose adjustments/interruptions were less frequent with the 3-weeks-on/1-week-off (50.0%) versus the continuous (73.7%) schedule. Antitumor activity (seven partial responses [six confirmed]) was demonstrated with BGJ398 doses ≥ 100 mg in patients with FGFR1-amplified sqNSCLC and FGFR3-mutant bladder/urothelial cancer. Conclusion BGJ398 at the MTD/RP2D had a tolerable and manageable safety profile and showed antitumor activity in several tumor types, including FGFR1-amplified sqNSCLC and FGFR3-mutant bladder/urothelial cancers.

PurposeTo explore the genetic landscape of tumors from patients enrolled on the BOLERO-2 trial to identify potential correlations between genetic alterations and efficacy of everolimus treatment. The BOLERO-2 trial has previously demonstrated that the addition of everolimus to exemestane prolonged progression-free survival by more than twofold in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, advanced breast cancer previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors.Patients and methodsNext-generation sequencing was used to analyze genetic status of cancer-related genes in 302 archival tumor specimens from patients representative of the BOLERO-2 study population. Correlations between the most common somatic alterations and degree of chromosomal instability, and treatment effect of everolimus were investigated.ResultsProgression-free survival benefit with everolimus was maintained regardless of alteration status of PIK3CA, FGFR1, and CCND1 or the pathways of which they are components. However, quantitative differences in everolimus benefit were observed between patient subgroups defined by the exon-specific mutations in PIK3CA (exon 20 v 9) or by different degrees of chromosomal instability in the tumor tissues.ConclusionThe data from this exploratory analysis suggest that the efficacy of everolimus was largely independent of the most commonly altered genes or pathways in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer. The potential impact of chromosomal instabilities and low-frequency genetic alterations on everolimus efficacy warrants further investigation.

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

BackgroundThe importance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as a prognostic and predictive marker in invasive breast cancer is well established. Accurate assessment of HER2 status is essential to determine optimal treatment options.MethodsBreast cancer tumor tissue samples from the VIRGO observational cohort tissue substudy that were locally HER2-negative were retested centrally with both US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays, using FDA-approved assay cutoffs; results were compared.ResultsOf the 552 unique patient samples centrally retested with local HER2-negative results recorded, tumor samples from 22 (4.0%) patients were determined to be HER2-positive (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5%-5.7%). Of these, 18 had been tested locally by only one testing methodology; 15 of 18 were HER2-positive after the central retesting, based on the testing methodology not performed locally. Compared with the 530 patients with centrally confirmed HER2-negative tumors, the 22 patients with centrally determined HER2-positive tumors were younger (median age 56.5 versus 60.0 years) and more likely to have ER/PR-negative tumors (27.3% versus 22.3%). These patients also had shorter median progression-free survival (6.4 months [95% CI = 3.8-15.9 months] versus 9.1 months [95% CI = 8.3-10.3 months]) and overall survival (25.9 months [95% CI = 13.8-not estimable] versus 27.9 months [95% CI = 25.0-32.9 months]).ConclusionsThis study highlights the limitations of employing just one HER2 testing methodology in current clinical practice. It identifies a cohort of patients who did not receive potentially efficacious therapy because their tumor HER2-positivity was not determined by the test initially used. Because of inherent limitations in testing methodologies, it is inadvisable to rely on a single test to rule out potential benefit from HER2-targeted therapy.

IntroductionEffective treatments for hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer (BC) following relapse/progression on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) therapy are needed. Initial Breast Cancer Trials of OraL EveROlimus-2 (BOLERO-2) trial data demonstrated that everolimus and exemestane significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus exemestane alone in this patient population.MethodsBOLERO-2 is a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, international trial comparing everolimus (10 mg/day) plus exemestane (25 mg/day) versus placebo plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR(+) advanced BC with recurrence/progression during or after NSAIs. The primary endpoint was PFS by local investigator review, and was confirmed by independent central radiology review. Overall survival, response rate, and clinical benefit rate were secondary endpoints.ResultsFinal study results with median 18-month follow-up show that median PFS remained significantly longer with everolimus plus exemestane versus placebo plus exemestane [investigator review: 7.8 versus 3.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38-0.54); log-rank P < 0.0001; central review: 11.0 versus 4.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.31-0.48); log-rank P < 0.0001] in the overall population and in all prospectively defined subgroups, including patients with visceral metastases, [corrected] and irrespective of age. The incidence and severity of adverse events were consistent with those reported at the interim analysis and in other everolimus trials.ConclusionThe addition of everolimus to exemestane markedly prolonged PFS in patients with HR(+) advanced BC with disease recurrence/progression following prior NSAIs. These results further support the use of everolimus plus exemestane in this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00863655.

BackgroundBreast Cancer Trials of Oral Everolimus 2 (BOLERO-2), a phase III study in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing despite nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy, showed statistically significant benefits with adding everolimus to exemestane. Moreover, in preclinical studies, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition was associated with decreased osteoclast survival and activity. Exploratory analyses in BOLERO-2 evaluated the effect of everolimus on bone marker levels and progressive disease in bone.MethodsPatients were treated with exemestane (25mg/day) and randomized (2:1) to everolimus (10mg/day; combination) or placebo (exemestane only). Exploratory endpoints included changes in bone turnover marker levels vs baseline and progressive disease in bone, defined as unequivocal progression of a preexisting bone lesion or the appearance of a new bone lesion.ResultsBaseline disease characteristics were well balanced between arms (N = 724); baseline bisphosphonate use was not (43.9% combination vs 54.0% exemestane only). At a median of 18 months of follow-up, median progression-free survival (primary endpoint) was statistically significantly longer with the combination vs exemestane only (Cox proportional hazard ratio = 0.45, 95% confidence interval = 0.38 to 0.54; log-rank, 1-sided P < .0001). Bone marker levels at 6 and 12 weeks increased with exemestane only, as expected, but decreased with the combination. The cumulative incidence rate of progressive disease in bone was lower in the combination arm. Bone-related adverse events occurred with similar frequency in both arms (3.3% combination vs 4.2% exemestane only).ConclusionThese exploratory analyses suggest that everolimus has beneficial effects on bone turnover and progressive disease in bone in patients receiving exemestane for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer progressing during/after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy.

BackgroundResistance to therapy with BRAF kinase inhibitors is associated with reactivation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. To address this problem, we conducted a phase 1 and 2 trial of combined treatment with dabrafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, and trametinib, a selective MAPK kinase (MEK) inhibitor.MethodsIn this open-label study involving 247 patients with metastatic melanoma and BRAF V600 mutations, we evaluated the pharmacokinetic activity and safety of oral dabrafenib (75 or 150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (1, 1.5, or 2 mg daily) in 85 patients and then randomly assigned 162 patients to receive combination therapy with dabrafenib (150 mg) plus trametinib (1 or 2 mg) or dabrafenib monotherapy. The primary end points were the incidence of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, survival free of melanoma progression, and response. Secondary end points were overall survival and pharmacokinetic activity.ResultsDose-limiting toxic effects were infrequently observed in patients receiving combination therapy with 150 mg of dabrafenib and 2 mg of trametinib (combination 150/2). Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was seen in 7% of patients receiving combination 150/2 and in 19% receiving monotherapy (P=0.09), whereas pyrexia was more common in the combination 150/2 group than in the monotherapy group (71% vs. 26%). Median progression-free survival in the combination 150/2 group was 9.4 months, as compared with 5.8 months in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.62; P

Introduction Convalescent plasma (CP) from patients who recover from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been in use since the inception of the pandemic to treat coronavirus disease [...], BACKGROUND. Evidence supporting convalescent plasma (CP), one of the first investigational treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been inconclusive, leading to conflicting recommendations. The primary objective was to perform a comparative effectiveness study of CP for all-cause, in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. METHODS. The multicenter, electronic health records-based, retrospective study included 44,770 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in one of 176 HCA Healthcare-affiliated community hospitals. Coarsened exact matching (1:k) was employed, resulting in a sample of 3774 CP and 10,687 comparison patients. RESULTS. Examination of mortality using a shared frailty model, controlling for concomitant medications, date of admission, and days from admission to transfusion, demonstrated a significant association of CP with lower mortality risk relative to the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.86; P< 0.001). Examination of patient risk trajectories, represented by 400 clinico-demographic features from our real-time risk model (RTRM), indicated that patients who received CP recovered more quickly. The stratification of days to transfusion revealed that CP within 3 days after admission, but not within 4 to 7 days, was associated with a significantly lower mortality risk (aHR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.47-0.60; P< 0.001). CP serology level was inversely associated with mortality when controlling for its interaction with days to transfusion (HR = 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.999; P = 0.013), yet it did not reach univariable significance. CONCLUSIONS. This large, diverse, multicenter cohort study demonstrated that CP, compared with matched controls, is significantly associated with reduced risk of in-hospital mortality. These observations highlight the utility of real-world evidence and suggest the need for further evaluation prior to abandoning CP as a viable therapy for COVID-19. FUNDING. This research was supported in whole by HCA Healthcare and/or an HCA Healthcare-affiliated entity, including Sarah Cannon and Genospace.