Bayer PLC and BTG PLC.

PURPOSE Nivolumab was assessed in patients with virus-associated tumors in the phase I/II CheckMate 358 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02488759 ). We report on patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Although patients with unknown human papillomavirus status were enrolled, patients known to have human papillomavirus–negative tumors were ineligible. The primary end point was objective response rate. Duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, and overall survival were secondary end points. Safety and patient-reported outcomes were exploratory end points. RESULTS Twenty-four patients (cervical, n = 19; vaginal/vulvar, n = 5) were enrolled. Most patients had received prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease (cervical, 78.9%; vaginal/vulvar, 80.0%). Objective response rates were 26.3% (95% CI, 9.1 to 51.2) for cervical cancer and 20.0% (95% CI, 0.5 to 71.6) for vaginal/vulvar cancers. At a median follow-up of 19.2 months, median DOR was not reached (range, 23.3 to 29.5+ months; + indicates a censored observation) in the five responding patients in the cervical cohort; the DOR was 5.0 months in the single responding patient in the vaginal/vulvar cohort. Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% CI, 15.1 months to not reached) among patients with cervical cancer. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in 12 of 19 patients (63.2%) in the cervical cohort and all five patients in the vaginal/vulvar cohort; there were no treatment-related deaths. In the cervical cohort, nivolumab treatment generally resulted in stabilization of patient-reported outcomes associated with health status and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION The efficacy of nivolumab in patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical and vaginal or vulvar cancers is promising and warrants additional investigation. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab treatment in this population.

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.