No abstract

PURPOSE In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated. RESULTS Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF–wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.

We established an international consortium to review and discuss relevant clinical evidence in order to develop expert consensus statements related to cancer management during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The steering committee prepared 10 working packages addressing significant clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a virtual consensus meeting of 62 global experts and one patient advocate, led by the European Society for Medical Oncology, statements were discussed, amended and voted upon. When consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements until a consensus was reached. Overall, the expert panel agreed on 28 consensus statements that can be used to overcome many of the clinical and technical areas of uncertainty ranging from diagnosis to therapeutic planning and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although these findings need to be confirmed and validated, we suggest that a neutrophil-based index may help risk-group stratification and assist disease-management strategies. Furthermore, the potential predictive value of this index for response to ipilimumab should be investigated in randomized clinical trials.

No abstract

LBA4 Background: About 50% of melanomas have an activating V600EBRAF mutation which led to the hypothesis that inhibition of the mutated BRAF kinase may be of clinical benefit. Phase I and II trials with vemurafenib (previously PLX4032/RO5185426), an orally available inhibitor of oncogenic BRAF kinase, showed response rates (RR; CR+PR) >50% in V600EBRAF- mutated melanoma patients (pts). We conducted a phase III trial to determine if vemurafenib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in melanoma pts with V600EBRAF mutation. Methods: Pts with previously untreated, unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma that tested positive for V600EBRAF mutation by the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test were randomized (1:1) to vemurafenib (960 mg po bid) or DTIC (1,000 mg/m2, IV, q3w). Randomization was stratified by PS, stage, LDH, and geographic region. Pts were assessed for tumor responses after weeks 6, 12, and then q9 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS on the intent-to-treat population; secondary endpoints included RR, response duration, and safety. Final analysis was planned at 196 deaths. Results: 675 pts were enrolled at 103 centers worldwide between Jan and Dec 2010. Treatment cohorts were well-balanced. At the pre-planned interim analysis (50% of deaths needed for final analysis), the hazard ratios for OS and PFS were 0.37 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.55; p<0.0001) and 0.26 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; p<0.0001), respectively, both in favor of vemurafenib. The confirmed RR was 48.4% and 5.5% to vemurafenib and DTIC, respectively, among the 65% of pts evaluable for RR to date. Benefit in OS, PFS, and RR was seen in all subgroups examined. Due to these data, the DTIC cohort has been allowed to cross over to vemurafenib. At the time of data analysis, 66% of vemurafenib pts and 25% DTIC pts were still on treatment. The most common toxicities of vemurafenib were: diarrhea, rash, alopecia, photosensitivity, fatigue, arthralgia, and keratoacanthoma/skin squamous cell carcinoma. Conclusions: Vemurafenib is associated with significantly improved OS and PFS compared to DTIC in pts with previously untreated, V600EBRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.

PURPOSE Preclinical data suggest the combination of an anti–programmed death receptor 1 antibody plus dabrafenib and trametinib to have superior antitumor activity compared with dabrafenib plus trametinib alone. These observations are supported by translational evidence suggesting that immune checkpoint inhibitors plus targeted therapy may improve treatment outcomes in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-i is a phase III trial evaluating spartalizumab, an anti–programmed death receptor 1 antibody, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram), versus placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in patients with BRAF V600–mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma. METHODS Patients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally twice daily and trametinib 2 mg orally once daily or placebo-DabTram. Participants were age ≥ 18 years with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600–mutant melanoma. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary end point (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02967692 ). RESULTS At data cutoff (July 1, 2020), the median progression-free survival was 16.2 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 23.9 months) in the sparta-DabTram arm versus 12.0 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 15.4 months) in the placebo-DabTram arm (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.03]; P = .042 [one-sided; nonsignificant]). The objective response rates were 69% (183 of 267 patients) versus 64% (170 of 265 patients), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 55% (146 of 267) of patients in the sparta-DabTram arm and 33% (88 of 264) in the placebo-DabTram arm. CONCLUSION The study did not meet its primary end point; broad first-line use of sparta-DabTram is not supported by these results. Further biomarker-driven investigation may identify patient subpopulations who could benefit from checkpoint inhibitor plus targeted therapy combinations.

PURPOSE Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma. METHODS SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447 ). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. RESULTS A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSION Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.