Explore the vast range of titles available.

Combined BRAF-MEK inhibitor therapy is the standard of care for BRAFV600-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 BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. 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 BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K 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. 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<0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients in the encorafenib plus binimetinib group were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased creatine phosphokinase (13 [7%]), and hypertension (11 [6%]); in the encorafenib group they were palmoplantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and in the vemurafenib group it was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). There were no treatment-related deaths except for one death in the combination group, which was considered possibly related to treatment by the investigator. 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. Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib alone improved progression-free survival compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma in the COLUMBUS trial. Here, we report the results of the secondary endpoint of overall survival. COLUMBUS was a two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 162 hospitals in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, or unknown primary melanoma, BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and were treatment naive or had progressed on or after first-line immunotherapy. In part 1 of the study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of interactive response technology to receive 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). Randomisation was stratified by the American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, ECOG performance status, and BRAF mutation status. The primary outcome of the trial, progression-free survival with encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib, was reported previously. Here we present the prespecified interim overall survival analysis. Efficacy analyses were by intent to treat. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Part 2 of the study was initiated at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration to better understand the contribution of binimetinib to the combination therapy by comparing encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily with encorafenib 300 mg once daily alone. Results of part 2 will be published separately. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453, and EudraCT, number 2013-001176-38. Between Dec 30, 2013, and April 10, 2015, 577 of 1345 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive encorafenib plus binimetinib (n=192), encorafenib (n=194), or vemurafenib (n=191). Median follow-up for overall survival was 36·8 months (95% CI 35·9–37·5). Median overall survival was 33·6 months (95% CI 24·4–39·2) with encorafenib plus binimetinib and 16·9 months (14·0–24·5) with vemurafenib (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·47–0·79]; two-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events did not change substantially from the first report; those seen in more than 5% of patients treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib were increased γ-glutamyltransferase (18 [9%] of 192 patients), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (14 [7%]), and hypertension (12 [6%]); those seen with encorafenib alone were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (26 [14%] of 192 patients), myalgia (19 [10%]), and arthralgia (18 [9%]); and with vemurafenib the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was arthralgia (11 [6%] of 186 patients). One death in the combination treatment group was considered by the investigator to be possibly related to treatment. The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib provided clinically meaningful efficacy with good tolerability as shown by improvements in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with vemurafenib. These data suggest that the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is likely to become an important therapeutic option in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. Array BioPharma, Novartis.

Immune checkpoint blockade has become standard treatment for many types of cancer. Such therapy is indicated most often in patients with advanced or metastatic disease but has been increasingly used as adjuvant therapy in those with early-stage disease. Adverse events include immune-related organ inflammation resembling autoimmune diseases. We describe a case of severe immune-related gastroenterocolitis in a 4-month-old infant who presented with intractable diarrhea and failure to thrive after in utero exposure to pembrolizumab. Known causes of the symptoms were ruled out, and the diagnosis of pembrolizumab-induced immune-related gastroenterocolitis was supported by the results of histopathological assays, immunophenotyping, and analysis of the level of antibodies against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1). The infant’s condition was successfully treated with prednisolone and infliximab. After a pregnant woman with melanoma received pembrolizumab therapy, severe autoimmune enteritis developed in her healthy newborn infant. The condition was treated with prednisolone and infliximab.

Background The prognosis of malignant primary high-grade brain tumors, predominantly glioblastomas, is poor despite intensive multimodality treatment options. In more than 50% of patients with glioblastomas, potentially targetable mutations are present, including rearrangements, altered splicing, and/or focal amplifications of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) by signaling through the RAF/RAS pathway. We studied whether treatment with the clinically available anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab provides clinical benefit for patients with RAF/RAS-wild-type (wt) glioblastomas in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). Methods Patients with progression of treatment refractory RAF/RASwt glioblastoma were included for treatment with panitumumab in DRUP when measurable according to RANO criteria. The primary endpoints of this study are clinical benefit (CB: defined as confirmed objective response [OR] or stable disease [SD] ≥ 16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon-like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1 and up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1 in 8 patients had CB in stage 1. Results Between 03-2018 and 02-2022, 24 evaluable patients were treated. CB was observed in 5 patients (21%), including 2 patients with partial response (8.3%) and 3 patients with SD ≥ 16 weeks (12.5%). After median follow-up of 15 months, median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.7 months (95% CI 1.6-2.1 months) and 4.5 months (95% CI 2.9-8.6 months), respectively. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Conclusions Panitumumab treatment provides limited CB in patients with recurrent RAF/RASwt glioblastoma precluding further development of this therapeutic strategy. New treatment options are needed for patients with recurrent glioblastomas. This study focused on whether treatment with the clinically available anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab provides clinical benefit for patients with RAF/RAS -wild-type glioblastomas in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have significantly improved the overall survival for patients with different solid tumors. However, there is an urgent need for predictive biomarkers to identify patients with metastatic melanoma who do not benefit from treatment with ICIs, to prevent unnecessary immune related adverse events (irAEs). Electronic noses (eNoses) showed promising results in the detection of cancer as well as the prediction of response outcome in patients with cancer. In this feasibility study, we aimed to investigate whether the breath pattern measured using eNose can be used as a simple biomarker to predict clinical benefit to first-line treatment with ICIs in patients with metastatic melanoma. In this prospective, observational single-center feasibility study, patients with metastatic melanoma performed a breath test using Aeonose™ before start of first-line treatment with ICIs. The detected exhaled breath pattern of volatile organic compounds (VOC) was used for machine learning in a training set to develop a model to identify patients who do not benefit from treatment with ICIs. Lack of clinical benefit was defined as progressive disease according to best tumor response using RECIST v1.1. Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. The eNose showed a distinct breath pattern between patients with and without clinical benefit from ICIs. To identify patients who do not benefit from first-line ICIs treatment, breath pattern analysis using the eNose resulted in a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 79%, and accuracy of 85%. Exhaled breath analysis using eNose can identify patients with metastatic melanoma who will not benefit from first-line treatment with ICIs and guide treatment strategies. When validated in an external cohort, eNose could be a useful tool to select these patients for alternative treatment strategies in clinical practice.

Purpose To evaluate the results of restaging completely resected stage IIIB/C melanoma prior to start of adjuvant therapy. Patients and Methods One hundred twenty patients with stage IIIB or IIIC (AJCC 2009) melanoma who underwent complete surgical resection were screened for inclusion in our trial investigating adjuvant dendritic cell therapy (NCT02993315). All patients underwent imaging to exclude local relapse or metastasis before entering the trial. The frequency of recurrent disease within 12 weeks after resection and the method of detection were investigated. Results Sixty-nine (58%) stage IIIB and 51 (43%) stage IIIC melanoma patients were screened. Median age was 54 (range 27–79) years. Twenty-two (18%) of 120 patients with completely resected stage IIIB/C melanoma had evidence of early recurrent disease, despite exclusion thereof by prior imaging. Median interval between resection and detection of relapse was 7.4 (range 4.3–10.7) weeks. Recurrence was asymptomatic in 17 (77%) patients, but metastasis was noticed by the patient or physician in 5 (23%). Eight patients with local relapse received local treatment with curative intent, and one was treated with systemic therapy. The remaining patients had distant metastasis, 1 of whom underwent resection of a solitary liver metastasis while 12 patients received systemic treatment. Conclusions Patients with completely resected stage IIIB/C melanoma have high risk of early recurrence before start of adjuvant therapy. Restaging should be considered for high-risk melanoma patients before start of adjuvant therapy.

In this study, we explored the predictive value of serum microRNA (miRNA) expression for early tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy and its association with overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A total of 132 PDAC patients of all disease stages were included in this study, of whom 25% showed progressive disease during FOLFIRINOX according to the RECIST criteria. MiRNA expression was analyzed in serum collected before the start and after one cycle of chemotherapy. In the discovery cohort (n = 12), a 352-miRNA RT-qPCR panel was used. In the validation cohorts (total n = 120), miRNA expression was detected using individual RT-qPCR miRNA primers. Before the start of FOLFIRINOX, serum miR-373-3p expression was higher in patients with progressive disease compared to patients with disease control after FOLFIRINOX (Log2 fold difference (FD) 0.88, p = 0.006). MiR-194-5p expression after one cycle of FOLFIRINOX was lower in patients with progressive disease (Log2 FD −0.29, p = 0.044). Both miRNAs were predictors of early tumor progression in a multivariable model including disease stage and baseline CA19-9 level (miR-373-3p odds ratio (OR) 3.99, 95% CI 1.10–14.49; miR-194-5p OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83–0.99). MiR-373-3p and miR-194-5p did not show an association with OS after adjustment for disease stage, baseline CA19-9, and chemotherapy response. In conclusion, high serum miR-373-3p before the start and low serum miR-194-5p after one cycle are associated with early tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX.

Background Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN 2) is caused by a RET mutation in chromosome 10. All MEN 2 patients develop medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC). The age-related risk of MTC is associated with the type of RET mutation. Our aim was to identify prognostic factors associated with recurrent MTC in MEN 2 patients. Methods In a nationwide case–control study, all patients who underwent total thyroidectomy in the Netherlands under the age of 20 years were classified into standard (1), high (2), or very high risk (3) for MTC based on RET -mutation type. Disease-free patients were compared with those with recurrent disease. Results A total of 93 patients were included in the study. Sixty-six percent had MTC on histology, the youngest being 1 year old. Codon 634 was most affected. Sixteen (18%) patients had persistent or recurrent disease, one of whom died. Significantly associated determinants of outcome in univariate analysis were higher age at surgery, no age-appropriate prophylactic surgery according to risk level, elevated preoperative calcitonin levels, affected codon, and the presence of lymph node metastases at surgery. On multivariate analysis only age of surgery was the single independent factor associated with persistent disease. Conclusions Prophylactic thyroidectomy beyond the recommended age is associated with persistent/recurrent disease. In addition, codon 634 mutation is associated with a high risk of recurrence requiring early surgery for all these patients.

Purpose: To perform a scoping review on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in randomized trials on systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between 2010 and 2021. Methods: First, a search on clinicaltrials.gov was performed, looking for randomized trials in mCRC. The use of PROMs was analyzed quantitatively. Subsequently, we assessed the completeness of PROM reporting based on the CONSORT PRO extension in publications related to the selected trials acquired using Embase and PubMed. Results: A total of 46/176 trials were registered on clinicaltrials.gov used PROMs. All these trials used validated PROM instruments. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (37 times), followed by the EQ-5D (21 times) and the EORTC QLQ-CR29 (six times). A total of 56/176 registered trials were published. In 35% (n = 20), the results of the PROMs were available. Overall, 7/20 (35%) trials documented all items of the CONSORT PRO extension and quality of reporting according to the CONSORT PRO extension was higher than in the period 2004–2012. In 3/20 (15%) of the published trials, the results of PROMs were not discussed nor included in the positioning of the new treatment compared to the reference treatment. Conclusion: When PROMs are used, the quality of reporting on patient-reported outcomes is improving, but this must continue in order to optimize the translation of trial results to individual patient values.