Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases (COMBI-MB): a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 trial
TL;DR: Results from the phase 2 COMBI-MB trial 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.
Abstract: Summary 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 ClinicalTrialsgov, 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
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Dabrafenib plus trametinib represents a new therapy with clinically meaningful antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC.
Abstract: Summary 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.
943 citations
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center1, University of South Florida2, University of California, San Francisco3, Harvard University4, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill5, University of Colorado Boulder6, University of Michigan7, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center8, Georgetown University9, Roswell Park Cancer Institute10, Emory University11, Stanford University12, University of Pittsburgh13, Cleveland Clinic14, New York University15, Bristol-Myers Squibb16, City of Hope National Medical Center17
TL;DR: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases.
Abstract: Background Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab ...
894 citations
TL;DR: A high proportion of patients achieved an intracranial response with the combination of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab, which should be considered as a first-line therapy for patients with asymptomatic untreated brain metastases.
Abstract: Summary Background Nivolumab monotherapy and combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab increase proportions of patients achieving a response and survival versus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma; however, efficacy in active brain metastases is unknown. We aimed to establish the efficacy and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with active melanoma brain metastases. Methods This multicentre open-label randomised phase 2 trial was done at four sites in Australia, in three cohorts of immunotherapy-naive patients aged 18 years or older with melanoma brain metastases. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with no previous local brain therapy were randomly assigned using the biased coin minimisation method, stratified by site, in a 30:24 ratio (after a safety run-in of six patients) to cohort A (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) or cohort B (nivolumab). Patients with brain metastases in whom local therapy had failed, or who had neurological symptoms, or leptomeningeal disease were enrolled in non-randomised cohort C (nivolumab). Patients in cohort A received intravenous nivolumab 1 mg/kg combined with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks; patients in cohort B or cohort C received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was intracranial response from week 12. Primary and safety analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02374242, and is ongoing for the final survival analysis. Findings Between Nov 4, 2014, and April 21, 2017, 79 patients were enrolled; 36 in cohort A, 27 in cohort B, and 16 in cohort C. One patient in cohort A and two in cohort B were found to be ineligible and excluded from the study before receiving the study drug. At the data cutoff (Aug 28, 2017), with a median follow up of 17 months (IQR 8–25), intracranial responses were achieved by 16 (46%; 95% CI 29–63) of 35 patients in cohort A, five (20%; 7–41) of 25 in cohort B, and one (6%; 0–30) of 16 in cohort C. Intracranial complete responses occurred in six (17%) patients in cohort A, three (12%) in cohort B, and none in cohort C. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (97%) of 35 patients in cohort A, 17 (68%) of 25 in cohort B, and eight (50%) of 16 in cohort C. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (54%) patients in cohort A, four (16%) in cohort B, and two (13%) in cohort C. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab and nivolumab monotherapy are active in melanoma brain metastases. A high proportion of patients achieved an intracranial response with the combination. Thus, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab should be considered as a first-line therapy for patients with asymptomatic untreated brain metastases. Funding Melanoma Institute Australia and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
687 citations
TL;DR: New insights are discussed into MAPK as a complex cell signaling pathway with roles in the sustenance of cellular normal conduit, response to cancer therapy, and activation of compensatory pathways.
Abstract: The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is an important bridge in the switch from extracellular signals to intracellular responses. Alterations of signaling cascades are found in various diseases, including cancer, as a result of genetic and epigenetic changes. Numerous studies focused on both the homeostatic and the pathologic conduct of MAPK signaling; however, there is still much to be deciphered in terms of regulation and action models in both preclinical and clinical research. MAPK has implications in the response to cancer therapy, particularly the activation of the compensatory pathways in response to experimental MAPK inhibition. The present paper discusses new insights into MAPK as a complex cell signaling pathway with roles in the sustenance of cellular normal conduit, response to cancer therapy, and activation of compensatory pathways. Unfortunately, most MAPK inhibitors trigger resistance due to the activation of compensatory feed-back loops in tumor cells and tumor microenvironment components. Therefore, novel combinatorial therapies have to be implemented for cancer management in order to restrict the possibility of alternative pathway activation, as a perspective for developing novel therapies based on integration in translational studies.
426 citations
Cites background from "Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patie..."
...BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases Dabrafenib + trametinib BRAF and MEK MAPK Phase II (NCT02039947) 2010–2019, completed Median duration of response was relatively short [116]...
[...]
...Dual MAPK pathway inhibition (dabrafenib and trametinib) was proven to have strong anti-tumor activity and good safety profile in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma brain metastases [116], BRAF-mutant NSCLC [117], and KRAS-mutant-positive NSCLC [118]....
[...]
French Institute of Health and Medical Research1, University of Zurich2, Netherlands Cancer Institute3, Erasmus University Rotterdam4, Université libre de Bruxelles5, Umeå University6, University of Lausanne7, University of Cambridge8, University Hospital Heidelberg9, German Cancer Research Center10, VU University Amsterdam11, University Medical Center Utrecht12, University of Turin13
TL;DR: The EANO-ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with leptomeningeal metastasis from solid tumours are published.
299 citations
References
More filters
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust1, European Institute of Oncology2, University of Colorado Denver3, Aix-Marseille University4, Baylor University5, University of Michigan6, University of Zurich7, Cross Cancer Institute8, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre9, Netherlands Cancer Institute10, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón11, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center12, Huntsman Cancer Institute13, Yale University14, University of Melbourne15, University of Sydney16, Cornell University17, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research18, University of Utah19, Yale Cancer Center20, Odense University Hospital21, Bristol-Myers Squibb22, Harvard University23
TL;DR: Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipILimumab alone, and in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone.
Abstract: The median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1–negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1–negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.)
6,318 citations
TL;DR: The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma.
Abstract: Background The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Pembrolizumab inhibits the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint and has antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, we assigned 834 patients with advanced melanoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks. Primary end points were progressionfree and overall survival. Results The estimated 6-month progression-free-survival rates were 47.3% for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 46.4% for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and 26.5% for ipilimumab (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.58; P<0.001 for both pembrolizumab regimens versus ipilimumab; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.46 to 0.72 and 0.47 to 0.72, respectively). Estimated 12-month survival rates were 74.1%, 68.4%, and 58.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for death for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.83; P = 0.0005; hazard ratio for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P = 0.0036). The response rate was improved with pembrolizumab administered every 2 weeks (33.7%) and every 3 weeks (32.9%), as compared with ipilimumab (11.9%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Responses were ongoing in 89.4%, 96.7%, and 87.9% of patients, respectively, after a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Efficacy was similar in the two pembrolizumab groups. Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 to 5 severity were lower in the pembrolizumab groups (13.3% and 10.1%) than in the ipilimumab group (19.9%). Conclusions The anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials .gov number, NCT01866319.)
4,612 citations
Harvard University1, Sarah Cannon Research Institute2, University of California, San Francisco3, University of Colorado Denver4, University of Sydney5, Vanderbilt University6, University of Pennsylvania7, University of Melbourne8, University of South Florida9, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center10, GlaxoSmithKline11
TL;DR: Dabrafenib and trametinib were safely combined at full monotherapy doses, and the rate of pyrexia was increased with combination therapy, whereas the rates of proliferative skin lesions was nonsignificantly reduced.
Abstract: Dose-limiting toxic effects were infrequently observed in patients receiving combination therapy with 150 mg of da braf e nib and 2 mg of tra me ti nib (combination 150/2). Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was seen in 7% of patients receiving combination 150/2 and in 19% receiving monotherapy (P = 0.09), whereas pyrexia was more common in the combination 150/2 group than in the monotherapy group (71% vs. 26%). Median progression-free survival in the combination 150/2 group was 9.4 months, as compared with 5.8 months in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.62; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response with combination 150/2 therapy was 76%, as compared with 54% with monotherapy (P = 0.03). Conclusions Da braf e nib and tra me ti nib were safely combined at full monotherapy doses. The rate of pyrexia was increased with combination therapy, whereas the rate of proliferative skin lesions was nonsignificantly reduced. Progression-free survival was significantly improved. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01072175.)
2,457 citations
TL;DR: Dabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity.
Abstract: Background The BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown efficacy as monotherapies in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Combining dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, enhanced antitumor activity in this population of patients. Methods In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) or vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. Results At the preplanned interim overall survival analysis, which was performed after 77% of the total number of expected events occurred, the overall survival rate at 12 months was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67 to 77) in the combination-therapy group and 65% (95% CI, 59 to 70) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89; P = 0.005). The prespecified interim stopping boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped for efficacy in July 2014. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the combinationtherapy group and 7.3 months in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 64% in the combinationtherapy group and 51% in the vemurafenib group (P<0.001). Rates of severe adverse events and study-drug discontinuations were similar in the two groups. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma occurred in 1% of patients in the combination-therapy group and 18% of those in the vemurafenib group. Conclusions Dabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.)
2,144 citations
University of Sydney1, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens2, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust3, University of Tübingen4, University of Duisburg-Essen5, University of Kiel6, Aix-Marseille University7, University of Paris8, University of Barcelona9, Netherlands Cancer Institute10, Karolinska Institutet11, Heidelberg University12, Mount Vernon Hospital13, Institut Gustave Roussy14, University of California, Los Angeles15, GlaxoSmithKline16, Harvard University17
TL;DR: A combination of dabraenib and trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, improved the rate of progression-free survival in previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition, as compared with BRAF inhibition alone, delays the emergence of resistance and reduces toxic effects in patients who have melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. METHODS In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 423 previously untreated patients who had unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily) or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response rate, response duration, and safety. A preplanned interim overall survival analysis was conducted. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months in the dabrafenib–trametinib group and 8.8 months in the dabrafenib-only group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the dabrafenib–trametinib group, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.99; P = 0.03). The overall response rate was 67% in the dabrafenib–trametinib group and 51% in the dabrafenib-only group (P = 0.002). At 6 months, the interim overall survival rate was 93% with dabrafenib–trametinib and 85% with dabrafenib alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.94; P = 0.02). However, a specified efficacy-stopping boundary (two-sided P = 0.00028) was not crossed. Rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups, although more dose modifications occurred in the dabrafenib–trametinib group. The rate of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was lower in the dabrafenib–trametinib group than in the dabrafenib-only group (2% vs. 9%), whereas pyrexia occurred in more patients (51% vs. 28%) and was more often severe (grade 3, 6% vs. 2%) in the dabrafenib–trametinib group. CONCLUSIONS A combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, improved the rate of progression-free survival in previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT01584648.)
1,501 citations