Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study.
University of Sydney1, Harvard University2, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens3, University of Tübingen4, Paris Diderot University5, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital6, Dniepropetrovsk State Medical Academy7, Netherlands Cancer Institute8, Karolinska University Hospital9, German Cancer Research Center10, Northwood University11, University of Paris-Sud12, University of California, Los Angeles13, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center14, Novartis15, Aix-Marseille University16
TL;DR: It is demonstrated 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.
About: This article is published in Annals of Oncology.The article was published on 2017-07-01 and is currently open access. It has received 483 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Dabrafenib & Trametinib.
Citations
More filters
Cornell University1, University of Colorado Denver2, Aix-Marseille University3, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust4, University of Michigan5, Swansea University6, German Cancer Research Center7, Cross Cancer Institute8, University of Zurich9, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre10, Netherlands Cancer Institute11, University of Sydney12, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven13, Complutense University of Madrid14, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre15, University of Paris16, University of Melbourne17, Northwestern University18, Bristol-Myers Squibb19, University of Duisburg-Essen20
TL;DR: Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with n ivolumAB alone than with ipil optimumab alone.
Abstract: BackgroundNivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. MethodsWe randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival a...
3,794 citations
University of Sydney1, Alfred Hospital2, German Cancer Research Center3, University of Queensland4, Freeman Hospital5, University of Oslo6, University of Bordeaux7, French Institute of Health and Medical Research8, Sheba Medical Center9, University of Kiel10, University of Zurich11, Novartis12, Macquarie University13, University of Pittsburgh14
TL;DR: 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 adjuvantUse of placebo and was not associated with new toxic effects.
Abstract: BackgroundCombination 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. MethodsIn 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. ResultsAt a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the estimated 3-year rate of relapse-free survival was 58% in the combination-therapy group a...
1,017 citations
Harvard University1, University of Colorado Boulder2, Aix-Marseille University3, Curie Institute4, Texas Oncology5, University of Michigan6, Swansea University7, European Institute of Oncology8, Cross Cancer Institute9, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre10, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón11, Bristol-Myers Squibb12, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust13, Cornell University14, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center15
TL;DR: The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of May 10, 2018.
Abstract: Summary Background Previously reported results from the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial showed a significant improvement in objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this report is to provide 4-year updated efficacy and safety data from this study. Methods In this phase 3 trial, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III or stage IV melanoma, known BRAFV600 mutation status, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus placebo, or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The patients, investigators, study site staff, and study funder were masked to the study drug administered. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of May 10, 2018. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844505. Findings Between July 3, 2013, and March 31, 2014, 945 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=314), nivolumab (n=316), or ipilimumab (n=315). Median follow-up was 46·9 months (IQR 10·9–51·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·0 months (10·5–51·4) in the nivolumab group, and 18·6 months (7·6–49·5) in the ipilimumab group. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months from the date that the final patient was enrolled and randomised, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 38·2–not reached) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·9 months (28·3–not reached) in the nivolumab group, and 19·9 months (16·9–24·6) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for death for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·54 (95% CI 0·44–0·67; p Interpretation The results of this analysis at 4 years of follow-up show that a durable, sustained survival benefit can be achieved with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
938 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, Cleveland Clinic13, University of Pittsburgh14, 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: This study investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenIB in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, and showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurAFenib.
Abstract: Summary Background Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAF V600 -mutant advanced melanoma. We investigated encorafenib, a BRAF inhibitor with unique target-binding properties, alone or in combination with the MEK inhibitor binimetinib, versus vemurafenib in patients with advanced BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma. Methods COLUMBUS was conducted as a two-part, randomised, open-label phase 3 study at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed locally advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV), unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma; a BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after previous first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive either oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus oral binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (encorafenib plus binimetinib group), oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily (encorafenib group), or oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily (vemurafenib group). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review for encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib. Efficacy analyses were by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug and one postbaseline safety assessment. The results of part 2 will be published separately. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. Findings Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to either the encorafenib plus binimetinib group (n=192), the encorafenib group (n=194), or the vemurafenib group (n=191). With a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 14·8–16·9), median progression-free survival was 14·9 months (95% CI 11·0–18·5) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group and 7·3 months (5·6–8·2) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 95% CI 0·41–0·71; two-sided p Interpretation Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy showed favourable efficacy compared with vemurafenib. Overall, encorafenib plus binimetinib appears to have an improved tolerability profile compared with encorafenib or vemurafenib. Encorafenib plus binimetinib could represent a new treatment option for patients with BRAF -mutant melanoma. Funding Array BioPharma, Novartis.
654 citations
References
More filters
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
"Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus d..." refers background or methods or result in this paper
...The 3-year OS reported for DþT in this large phase 3 trial (44%) confirms preliminary results for the smaller corresponding patient subset in the randomized phase 2 BRF113220 trial (3-year OS, 38%) [11]....
[...]
...6 months) was reported for the phase 2 BRF113220 study (part C) evaluating DþT (n1⁄4 54) versus dabrafenib monotherapy (n1⁄4 54) [11], in which DþT-treated patients had a 2- and 3-year PFS of 25% and 21%, respectively, and a 2- and 3-year OS of 51% and 38%, respectively....
[...]
...Analyses of BRAFi-naive patients treated with DþT in the phase 2 BRF113220 study and in a pooled analysis across DþT registration trials identified significant associations between baseline LDH and number of organ sites containing metastasis and clinical outcomes [11, 14]....
[...]
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, Harvard University2, Hochschule Hannover3, Medical University of Vienna4, Roswell Park Cancer Institute5, McGill University6, University of Michigan7, Washington University in St. Louis8, Huntsman Cancer Institute9, University Hospital Heidelberg10, University of Siena11, Yale Cancer Center12, University of California, Los Angeles13, Mayo Clinic14, Herlev Hospital15, Aix-Marseille University16, Technische Universität München17, Bristol-Myers Squibb18, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust19
TL;DR: Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilicumab and a BRAF inhibitor.
Abstract: Summary Background Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAF V 600 mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01721746. Findings Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5–40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5–23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3–4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three [1%] of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two [1%] each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 [14%] of 102), thrombocytopenia (six [6%]), and anaemia (five [5%]). We noted grade 3–4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
2,260 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
"Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus d..." refers background or methods or result in this paper
...Influences of prognostic factors on patient-derived benefit were explored with descriptive subgroup stratification by baseline factors previously identified as being predictive of outcomes in patients receiving DþT [14]....
[...]
...0 months) showed that normal baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and<3 organ sites containing metastasis were the factors most predictive of durable outcomes; patients with both of these characteristics had a 2-year PFS of 46% and a 2-year OS of 75% [14]....
[...]
...More generally, survival observed in the current analysis is consistent with previous findings for DþT in BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, since the 2-year OS reported here (52%) is similar to that reported in the randomized phase 3 COMBI-v study (51%) and in a pooled analysis across registration trials (53%) [14]....
[...]
...Analyses of BRAFi-naive patients treated with DþT in the phase 2 BRF113220 study and in a pooled analysis across DþT registration trials identified significant associations between baseline LDH and number of organ sites containing metastasis and clinical outcomes [11, 14]....
[...]
TL;DR: A plateau in the survival curve was observed, beginning at approximately 3 years, which was independent of prior therapy or ipilimumab dose, and added to the evidence supporting the durability of long-term survival in ipILimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma.
Abstract: Purpose To provide a more precise estimate of long-term survival observed for ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma, we performed a pooled analysis of overall survival (OS) data from multiple studies. Methods The primary analysis pooled OS data for 1,861 patients from 10 prospective and two retrospective studies of ipilimumab, including two phase III trials. Patients were previously treated (n = 1,257) or treatment naive (n = 604), and the majority of patients received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (n = 965) or 10 mg/kg (n = 706). We also conducted a secondary analysis of OS data (n = 4,846) with an additional 2,985 patients from an expanded access program. OS rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Among 1,861 patients, median OS was 11.4 months (95% CI, 10.7 to 12.1 months), which included 254 patients with at least 3 years of survival follow-up. The survival curve began to plateau around year 3, with follow-up of up to 10 years. Three-year survival rates were 22%, 26%, and 20% for...
1,798 citations
"Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus d..." refers background in this paper
...Furthermore, it is important to note that the plateau survival pattern observed with ipilimumab [2] has not yet been demonstrated with anti-PD-1 therapies and remains a potential survival pattern for BRAFi/MEKi....
[...]
...The anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) therapy ipilimumab was the first agent to show durable clinical benefit lasting 5 years in a subset of patients within molecularly unselected advanced melanoma populations [2]....
[...]
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