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 combination-therapy 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 combination-therapy 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.).

Many patients with advanced cancers achieve dramatic responses to a panoply of therapeutics yet retain minimal residual disease (MRD), which ultimately results in relapse. To gain insights into the biology of MRD, we applied single-cell RNA sequencing to malignant cells isolated from BRAF mutant patient-derived xenograft melanoma cohorts exposed to concurrent RAF/MEK-inhibition. We identified distinct drug-tolerant transcriptional states, varying combinations of which co-occurred within MRDs from PDXs and biopsies of patients on treatment. One of these exhibited a neural crest stem cell (NCSC) transcriptional program largely driven by the nuclear receptor RXRG. An RXR antagonist mitigated accumulation of NCSCs in MRD and delayed the development of resistance. These data identify NCSCs as key drivers of resistance and illustrate the therapeutic potential of MRD-directed therapy. They also highlight how gene regulatory network architecture reprogramming may be therapeutically exploited to limit cellular heterogeneity, a key driver of disease progression and therapy resistance.

No abstract

Purpose The addition of nivolumab (anti-programmed death-1 antibody) to ipilimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-associated 4 antibody) in patients with advanced melanoma improves antitumor response and progression-free survival but with a higher frequency of adverse events (AEs). This cross-melanoma study describes the safety profile of the approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab regimen. Methods This retrospective safety review on data from three trials (phase I, II, and III) included patients with advanced melanoma who received at least one dose of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 and then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity while following established guidelines for AE management. Analyses were of all treatment-related AEs, select (immune-related) AEs, time to onset and resolution, and use of immune-modulating agents and their effects on outcome. Results Among 448 patients, median duration of follow-up was 13.2 months. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55.5% of patients; 35.7% had treatment-related AEs that led to discontinuation. The most frequent treatment-related select AEs of any grade were skin (64.3%) and GI (46.7%) and of grade 3/4, hepatic (17.0%) and GI (16.3%); 30.1% developed a grade 2 to 4 select AE in more than one organ category. Median time to onset of grade 3/4 treatment-related select AEs ranged from 3.1 (skin) to 16.3 (renal) weeks, and with the exclusion of endocrine AEs, median time to resolution from onset ranged from 1.9 (renal) to 4.5 (pulmonary) weeks, with resolution rates between 79% and 100% while using immune-modulating agents. Four (< 1%) on-study deaths were attributed to therapy. Conclusion Frequency of grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and occurred earlier than historical experience with either agent alone, but resolution rates were similar.

Sunitinib is approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and imatinib-resistant or -intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). Several studies have identified unexpected rates of thyroid dysfunction with sunitinib treatment. We performed a prospective observational study with the aim of more accurately defining the incidence and severity of hypothyroidism in RCC or GIST patients receiving sunitinib. Thyroid function was assessed at baseline and on days 1 and 28 of each treatment cycle. Thyroid antibodies were assessed at baseline and during follow-up if abnormal thyroid function tests were recorded. Sixteen patients (27%) developed sub-or clinical hypothyroidism and required hormone replacement and 20 patients (34%) showed at least one elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone not requiring therapeutic intervention. Twenty patients (34%) did not develop any biochemical thyroid abnormality. Thus, sunitinib can induce (sub-) clinical hypothyroidism, warranting close monitoring of thyroid function. We propose a new algorithm for managing this side effect in clinical practise.

Purpose Uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults with no effective systemic treatment option in the metastatic setting. Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) is an oral, potent, and selective MEK1/2 inhibitor with a short half-life, which demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma in a randomized phase II trial. Methods The Selumetinib (AZD6244: ARRY-142886) (Hyd-Sulfate) in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma (SUMIT) study was a phase III, double-blind trial ( ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01974752) in which patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (3:1) to selumetinib (75 mg twice daily) plus dacarbazine (1,000 mg/m intravenously on day 1 of every 21-day cycle) or placebo plus dacarbazine. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central radiologic review. Secondary end points included overall survival and objective response rate. Results A total of 129 patients were randomly assigned to receive selumetinib plus dacarbazine (n = 97) or placebo plus dacarbazine (n = 32). In the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group, 82 patients (85%) experienced a PFS event, compared with 24 (75%) in the placebo plus dacarbazine group (median, 2.8 v 1.8 months); the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.48 to 1.27; two-sided P = .32). The objective response rate was 3% with selumetinib plus dacarbazine and 0% with placebo plus dacarbazine (two-sided P = .36). At 37% maturity (n = 48 deaths), analysis of overall survival gave a hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.39 to 1.46; two-sided P = .40). The most frequently reported adverse events (selumetinib plus dacarbazine v placebo plus dacarbazine) were nausea (62% v 19%), rash (57% v 6%), fatigue (44% v 47%), diarrhea (44% v 22%), and peripheral edema (43% v 6%). Conclusion In patients with metastatic uveal melanoma, the combination of selumetinib plus dacarbazine had a tolerable safety profile but did not significantly improve PFS compared with placebo plus dacarbazine.

No abstract

No abstract