Search

Supplementary Table S2 from Genomic Features of Exceptional Response in Vemurafenib ± Cobimetinib–treated Patients with BRAFV600-mutated Metastatic Melanoma

Supplementary Figure 1

Purpose: Previous investigations identified transcriptional signatures associated with innate resistance to anti–programmed cell death protein 1 therapy in melanoma. This analysis aimed to increase understanding of the role of baseline genetic features in the variability of response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy for BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma.Patients and Methods: This exploratory analysis compared genomic features, using whole-exome and RNA sequencing, of baseline tumors from patients who had complete response versus rapid progression (disease progression at first postbaseline assessment) on treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib or vemurafenib alone. Associations of gene expression with progression-free survival or overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling.Results: Whole-exome sequencing showed that MITF and TP53 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with rapid progression, while NF1 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with complete response. However, the low frequency of alterations in any one gene precluded their characterization as drivers of response/resistance. Analysis of RNA profiles showed that expression of immune response–related genes was enriched in tumors from patients with complete response, while expression of keratinization-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients who experienced rapid progression.Conclusions: These findings suggest that enriched immune infiltration might be a shared feature favoring response to both targeted and immune therapies, while features of innate resistance to targeted and immune therapies were distinct.

Supplementary tables

Supplementary Data from Genomic Features of Exceptional Response in Vemurafenib ± Cobimetinib–treated Patients with BRAFV600-mutated Metastatic Melanoma

Purpose:To report the 5-year overall survival (OS) landmark and the long-term safety profile of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (BRAF plus MEK inhibition, respectively) in the BRIM7 study.Patients and Methods:This phase Ib, dose-finding, and expansion study evaluated combination treatment with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in two cohorts of patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma: patients who were BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi)-naïve (n = 63) or patients who had progressed on prior treatment with BRAFi monotherapy [vemurafenib monotherapy–progressive disease (PD); n = 66]. Patients in the dose-escalation phase received vemurafenib at 720 or 960 mg twice daily in combination with cobimetinib at 60, 80, or 100 mg/d for 14 days on/14 days off, 21 days on/7 days off, or continuously. Two regimens were selected for expansion: vemurafenib (720 and 960 mg twice daily) and cobimetinib (60 mg/d 21/7).Results:Median OS was 31.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 24.5–not estimable] in the BRAFi-naïve cohort. The landmark OS rate plateaued at 39.2% at years 4 and 5 of follow-up. In the vemurafenib monotherapy–PD cohort, the median OS was 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.7–11.1), and the landmark OS rate plateaued at 14.0% from 3 years of follow-up. No increase was observed in the frequency and severity of adverse events with long-term follow-up. No new toxicities were detected, and there was no increase in the frequency of symptomatic MEK inhibitor class-effect adverse events.Conclusions:A subset of patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma treated with a combination regimen of vemurafenib and cobimetinib achieve favorable long-term outcomes.

Purpose: To report the 5-year overall survival (OS) landmark and the long-term safety profile of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (BRAF plus MEK inhibition, respectively) in the BRIM7 study. Patients and Methods: This phase Ib, dose-finding, and expansion study evaluated combination treatment with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in two cohorts of patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma: patients who were BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi)-naïve (n = 63) or patients who had progressed on prior treatment with BRAFi monotherapy [vemurafenib monotherapy–progressive disease (PD); n = 66]. Patients in the dose-escalation phase received vemurafenib at 720 or 960 mg twice daily in combination with cobimetinib at 60, 80, or 100 mg/d for 14 days on/14 days off, 21 days on/7 days off, or continuously. Two regimens were selected for expansion: vemurafenib (720 and 960 mg twice daily) and cobimetinib (60 mg/d 21/7). Results: Median OS was 31.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 24.5–not estimable] in the BRAFi-naïve cohort. The landmark OS rate plateaued at 39.2% at years 4 and 5 of follow-up. In the vemurafenib monotherapy–PD cohort, the median OS was 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.7–11.1), and the landmark OS rate plateaued at 14.0% from 3 years of follow-up. No increase was observed in the frequency and severity of adverse events with long-term follow-up. No new toxicities were detected, and there was no increase in the frequency of symptomatic MEK inhibitor class-effect adverse events. Conclusions: A subset of patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma treated with a combination regimen of vemurafenib and cobimetinib achieve favorable long-term outcomes.

Purpose: Previous investigations identified transcriptional signatures associated with innate resistance to anti–programmed cell death protein 1 therapy in melanoma. This analysis aimed to increase understanding of the role of baseline genetic features in the variability of response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy for BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma. Patients and Methods: This exploratory analysis compared genomic features, using whole-exome and RNA sequencing, of baseline tumors from patients who had complete response versus rapid progression (disease progression at first postbaseline assessment) on treatment with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib or vemurafenib alone. Associations of gene expression with progression-free survival or overall survival were assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: Whole-exome sequencing showed that MITF and TP53 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with rapid progression, while NF1 alterations were more frequent in tumors from patients with complete response. However, the low frequency of alterations in any one gene precluded their characterization as drivers of response/resistance. Analysis of RNA profiles showed that expression of immune response–related genes was enriched in tumors from patients with complete response, while expression of keratinization-related genes was enriched in tumors from patients who experienced rapid progression. Conclusions: These findings suggest that enriched immune infiltration might be a shared feature favoring response to both targeted and immune therapies, while features of innate resistance to targeted and immune therapies were distinct.

The goal of this research is to discover what groups of genes are associated with the disease process. We use binary and failure time outcomes to inform the clustering of longitudinally-collected microarray data. We propose a linear model with normally distributed cluster-specific random effects for the longitudinal gene expression trajectory. The random effects are linearly related to a latent continuous representation of the outcome, where the probability or hazard of the outcome depends on these latent variables. We apply our method to microarray data collected from trauma patients in the Inflammation and Host Response to Injury project.

Background Serous chorioretinopathy has been associated with MEK inhibitors, including cobimetinib. We describe the clinical features of serous retinopathy observed with cobimetinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma treated in the Phase III coBRIM study. Methods In the coBRIM study, 493 patients were treated in two randomly assigned treatment groups: cobimetinib and vemurafenib (n = 247) or vemurafenib (n = 246). All patients underwent prospective ophthalmic examinations at screening, at regular intervals during the study, and whenever ocular symptoms developed. Patients with serous retinopathy were identified in the study database using a group of relevant and synonymous adverse event terms. Results Eighty-six serous retinopathy events were reported in 70 patients (79 events in 63 cobimetinib and vemurafenib-treated patients vs seven events in seven vemurafenib-treated patients). Most patients with serous retinopathy identified by ophthalmic examination had no symptoms or had mild symptoms, among them reduced visual acuity, blurred vision, dyschromatopsia, and photophobia. Serous retinopathy usually occurred early during cobimetinib and vemurafenib treatment; median time to onset was 1.0 month. Most events were managed by observation and continuation of cobimetinib without dose modification and resolved or were resolving by the data cutoff date (19 Sept 2014). Conclusions Cobimetinib treatment was associated with serous retinopathy in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma. Retinopathy was generally asymptomatic or mild. Periodic ophthalmologic evaluations at regular intervals and at the manifestation of any visual disturbance are recommended to facilitate early detection and resolution of serous retinopathy while patients are taking cobimetinib. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01689519). First received: September 18, 2012

Background Dysregulated hepatocyte growth factor/mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling is associated with poor prognosis and resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report outcomes from a double-blind, multicenter phase II trial of the MET inhibitor onartuzumab in combination with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab for mCRC (GO27827; NCT01418222). Materials and methods Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive onartuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) or placebo plus mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV). Oxaliplatin was given for 8-12 cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression-positive populations. Results Between September 2011 and November 2012, 194 patients were enrolled. In September 2013, an interim analysis recommended stopping onartuzumab treatment due to lack of efficacy. At the time of the final analysis in February 2014, no significant improvement in PFS was seen with onartuzumab versus placebo in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. An improvement in PFS was noted in the MET IHC-negative population. Neither overall survival nor response rate was improved with onartuzumab. The incidence of fatigue, peripheral edema, and deep vein thrombosis was increased with onartuzumab relative to placebo. Conclusion Onartuzumab combined with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab did not significantly improve efficacy outcomes in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. MET expression by IHC was not a predictive biomarker in this setting. The Oncologist 2017;22:264-271 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The addition of onartuzumab to mFOLFOX-6 plus bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer in this randomized, phase II study. Although initial results with onartuzumab were promising, a number of phase II/III clinical trials have reported a lack of improvement in efficacy with onartuzumab combined with standard-of-care therapies in several tumor types. Furthermore, negative study data have been published for rilotumumab and ficlatuzumab, both of which block hepatocyte growth factor binding to the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) receptor. MET immunohistochemistry was not a predictive biomarker. It remains to be seen if other biomarkers or small molecule inhibitors may be more appropriate for inhibiting this oncogenic pathway.

PURPOSE: To report the 5-year overall survival (OS) landmark and the long-term safety profile of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (BRAF plus MEK inhibition, respectively) in the BRIM7 study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase 1b, dose-finding and expansion study evaluated combination treatment with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in two cohorts of patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma: patients who were BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi)-naive (n = 63) or patients who had progressed on prior treatment with BRAFi monotherapy (vemurafenib monotherapy–progressive disease [PD]) (n = 66). Patients in the dose-escalation phase received vemurafenib at 720 or 960 mg twice daily in combination with cobimetinib at 60, 80, or 100 mg/d for 14 days on/14 days off; 21 days on/7 days off; or continuously. Two regimens were selected for expansion: vemurafenib (720 and 960 mg twice daily) and cobimetinib (60 mg/d 21/7). RESULTS: Median OS was 31.8 months (95% CI: 24.5–not estimable) in the BRAFi-naive cohort. The landmark OS rate plateaued at 39.2% at years 4 and 5 of follow-up. In the vemurafenib monotherapy–PD cohort, median OS was 8.5 months (95% CI: 6.7–11.1) and the landmark OS rate plateaued at 14.0% from 3 years of follow-up. No increase was observed in the frequency and severity of adverse events with long-term follow-up. No new toxicities were detected and there was no increase in the frequency of symptomatic MEK inhibitor class-effect adverse events. CONCLUSION: A subset of patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma treated with a combination regimen of vemurafenib and cobimetinib achieve favorable long-term outcomes.

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

9522Background: The coBRIM study demonstrated that first-line C+V improved progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with placebo (P)+V in pts with BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanom...

B-cell lymphomas with concurrent IGH-BCL2 and MYC rearrangements, also known as “double-hit” lymphomas (DHL), are rare neoplasms characterized by highly aggressive clinical behavior, complex karyotypes, and a spectrum of pathological features overlapping with Burkitt lymphoma (BL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and B-lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukemia (B-LBL). The clinical and pathological spectrum of this rare entity, including comparison to other high-grade B-cell neoplasms, has not been well defined. We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical and pathologic features of 20 cases of DHL seen at our institution during a 5-year period. In addition, we performed case-control comparisons of DHL with BL and International Prognostic Index (IPI)-matched DLBCL. The 11 men and 9 women had a median age of 63.5 years (range 32-91). Six patients had a history of grade 1-2 follicular lymphoma (FL); review of the prior biopsy specimens in 2 of 5 cases revealed blastoid morphology. Eighteen patients had Ann Arbor stage 3 or 4 disease and all had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels at presentation. Extranodal disease was present in 17/20 (85%), bone marrow involvement in 10/17 (59%) and central nervous system (CNS) disease in 5/11 (45%). Nineteen patients were treated with combination chemotherapy, of whom 18 received rituximab and 14 received CNS-directed therapy. Fourteen patients (70%) died within 8 months of diagnosis. Median overall survival in the DHL group (4.5 months) was inferior to both BL (p=0.002) and IPI-matched DLBCL (p=0.04) control patients. Twelve DHL cases (60%) were classified as B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between DLBCL and BL, 7 cases (35%) as DLBCL, not otherwise specified, and 1 case as B-LBL. Distinguishing features from BL included expression of Bcl2 (p

The combination of cobimetinib with vemurafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo and vemurafenib in previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma, as previously reported in the coBRIM study. In this Article, we report updated efficacy results, including overall survival and safety after longer follow-up, and selected biomarker correlative studies.In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed BRAF(V600) mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive response system to receive cobimetinib (60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day rest period in each 28-day cycle) or placebo, in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). Progression-free and overall survival were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; all analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01689519, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants.Between Jan 8, 2013, and Jan 31, 2014, 495 eligible adult patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib group (n=247) or placebo plus vemurafenib group (n=248). At a median follow-up of 14·2 months (IQR 8·5-17·3), the updated investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 7·2 months (5·6-7·5) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46-0·72], p0·0001). The final analysis for overall survival occurred when 255 (52%) patients had died (Aug 28, 2015). Median overall survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·3-not estimable) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 17·4 months (95% CI 15·0-19·8) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·90; p=0·005). The safety profile for cobimetinib and vemurafenib was tolerable and manageable, and no new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events occurring at a higher frequency in patients in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group compared with the vemurafenib group were γ-glutamyl transferase increase (36 [15%] in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group vs 25 [10%] in the placebo and vemurafenib group), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (30 [12%] vs one [1%]), and alanine transaminase increase (28 [11%] vs 15 [6%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 92 patients (37%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 69 patients (28%) in the vemurafenib group. Pyrexia (six patients [2%]) and dehydration (five patients [2%]) were the most common serious adverse events reported in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group. A total of 259 patients have died: 117 (47%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 142 (58%) in the vemurafenib group. The primary cause of death was disease progression in most patients: 109 (93%) of 117 in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 133 (94%) of 142 in the vemurafenib group.These data confirm the clinical benefit of cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib and support the use of the combination as a standard first-line approach to improve survival in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma.F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

1074Background: C is a highly selective MEK inhibitor. Up-regulation of the MAPK pathway may confer resistance to taxane therapy. Because resistance to taxanes occurs in most TNBC pts and many TNBC...

9533Background: coBRIM (Larkin J et al. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1867-1876.) showed significant improvement in PFS and OS with C+V treatment for advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma patients (pts) but was a...

9510Background: The BRIM7 study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID, NCT01271803) evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of C+V (Ribas A et al. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:954-965.); a subsequent randomized ph...

TPS1100Background: Preclinical data suggest that up-regulation of the MAPK pathway is a potential resistance mechanism against taxane chemotherapy. Often, resistance to taxane chemotherapy occurs i...

9530Background: In coBRIM, C+V significantly improved PFS and OS versus placebo (P)+V in pts with BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma, with benefit in all prespecified subgroups evaluated (Larkin J ...

Purpose Phase II trials with biochemotherapy (BCT) have shown encouraging response rates in metastatic melanoma, and meta-analyses and one phase III trial have suggested a survival benefit. In an effort to determine the relative efficacy of BCT compared with chemotherapy alone, a phase III trial was performed within the United States Intergroup. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (CVD) either alone or concurrent with interleukin-2 and interferon alfa-2b (BCT). Treatment cycles were repeated at 21-day intervals for a maximum of four cycles. Tumor response was assessed after cycles 2 and 4, then every 3 months. Results Four hundred fifteen patients were enrolled, and 395 patients (CVD, n = 195; BCT, n = 200) were deemed eligible and assessable. The two study arms were well balanced for stratification factors and other prognostic factors. Response rate was 19.5% for BCT and 13.8% for CVD (P = .140). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer for BCT than for CVD (4.8 v 2.9 months; P = .015), although this did not translate into an advantage in either median overall survival (9.0 v 8.7 months) or the percentage of patients alive at 1 year (41% v 36.9%). More patients experienced grade 3 or worse toxic events with BCT than CVD (95% v 73%; P = .001). Conclusion Although BCT produced slightly higher response rates and longer median progression-free survival than CVD alone, this was not associated with either improved overall survival or durable responses. Considering the extra toxicity and complexity, this concurrent BCT regimen cannot be recommended for patients with metastatic melanoma.

One goal of cluster analysis is to sort characteristics into groups (clusters) so that those in the same group are more highly correlated to each other than they are to those in other groups. An example is the search for groups of genes whose expression of RNA is correlated in a population of patients. These genes would be of greater interest if their common level of RNA expression were additionally predictive of the clinical outcome. This issue arose in the context of a study of trauma patients on whom RNA samples were available. The question of interest was whether there were groups of genes that were behaving similarly, and whether each gene in the cluster would have a similar effect on who would recover. For this, we develop an algorithm to simultaneously assign characteristics (genes) into groups of highly correlated genes that have the same effect on the outcome (recovery). We propose a random effects model where the genes within each group (cluster) equal the sum of a random effect, specific to the observation and cluster, and an independent error term. The outcome variable is a linear combination of the random effects of each cluster. To fit the model, we implement a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm based on the likelihood of the observed data. We evaluate the effect of including outcome in the model through simulation studies and describe a strategy for prediction. These methods are applied to trauma data from the Inflammation and Host Response to Injury research program, revealing a clustering of the genes that are informed by the recovery outcome.

9020 Background: BRIM7 formed the basis for development of the VEM + COBI regimen, which, in a randomized phase III trial, confirmed the statistically significant and clinically meaningful progress...

9033 Background: Various ocular adverse events (AE) have been described with targeted agents. MEK inhibitors (MEKi) are associated with SR. We describe the clinical features of SR observed with COB...

663 Background: In mCRC, MET overexpression has been associated with poor prognosis and resistance to anti-VEGF therapy. We initiated a phase II study to evaluate the combination of onartuzumab (O), a ligand-blocking monoclonal antibody directed against the MET receptor, plus bevacizumab and FOLFOX, in first-line mCRC (GO27827; NCT01418222). Methods: This double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase II study randomized patients 1:1 to receive O (10 mg/kg iv) or placebo (P), plus mFOLFOX6 and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg iv). Stratification was by prior adjuvant therapy. All treatments were given on day 1–3 of a 2-week cycle. Oxaliplatin was given for up to 8–12 cycles; all other agents were continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity or death. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in ITT and MET+ subgroup by immunohistochemistry (IHC). MET status was determined by central laboratory IHC evaluation, with scores of 2+ or 3+ considered MET+. Results: From September 2011 to November 2012, 194 patients were enrolled. A recommendation was made to stop O after an interim efficacy and safety analysis in September 2013, due to lack of efficacy. The final analysis (cut-off Feb 2014) found that O did not improve PFS vs. P in the ITT (HR 0.75 [0.52–1.08]; p=0.12) or MET IHC+ populations (n=79; HR 1.03 [0.56–1.89]; p=0.93), although improvement was noted in the MET IHC− population (n=108; HR 0.60 [0.37–0.97]; p=0.03). Neither overall survival (OS) nor response rate (RR) was improved with O vs. P in any of the groups (OS HR 0.96 [0.61–1.50], p=0.85 for ITT; OS HR 1.24 [0.63–2.43], p=0.54 for MET IHC+; OS HR 0.83 [0.44–1.56], p=0.56 for MET IHC−; RR 57.3% vs. 57.7% for ITT, 43.2% vs. 57.1% for MET IHC+, 66.1% vs. 60.8% for MET IHC−). More edema (65.7% vs. 12.9%) and venous thromboembolic events (30.3% vs. 16.1%) were seen with O vs. P, respectively. Grade ≥3 events were similar (86.9% vs. 84.9%) and events leading to discontinuation were increased (48.5% vs. 37.6%) with O vs. P. Conclusions: Adding onartuzumab to FOLFOX/bevacizumab did not prolong PFS in first-line unselected or MET IHC+ mCRC. A trend towards PFS benefit was seen in those with MET IHC− mCRC, contrary to prior reports in other tumor types. Clinical trial information: NCT01418222.