Istituto Oncologico Veneto

BACKGROUND Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive one of the following regimens: nivolumab (at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks); nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab-matched placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses) plus nivolumab-matched placebo. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, as compared with the ipilimumab group. RESULTS At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the median overall survival was more than 60.0 months (median not reached) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 36.9 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.52; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.63). Overall survival at 5 years was 52% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 44% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 26% in the ipilimumab group. No sustained deterioration of health-related quality of life was observed during or after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone. No new late toxic effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with advanced melanoma, sustained longterm overall survival at 5 years was observed in a greater percentage of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone than in those who received ipilimumab alone, with no apparent loss of quality of life in the patients who received regimens containing nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

BACKGROUND: Olaparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has promising antitumor activity in patients with metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which olaparib monotherapy was compared with standard therapy in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or standard therapy with single-agent chemotherapy of the physician's choice (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine in 21-day cycles). The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review and was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Of the 302 patients who underwent randomization, 205 were assigned to receive olaparib and 97 were assigned to receive standard therapy. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the standard-therapy group (7.0 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.80; P<0.001). The response rate was 59.9% in the olaparib group and 28.8% in the standard-therapy group. The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 36.6% in the olaparib group and 50.5% in the standard-therapy group, and the rate of treatment discontinuation due to toxic effects was 4.9% and 7.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation, olaparib monotherapy provided a significant benefit over standard therapy; median progression-free survival was 2.8 months longer and the risk of disease progression or death was 42% lower with olaparib monotherapy than with standard therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; OlympiAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02000622 .).

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) have emerged as major regulators of immune responses in cancer and other pathological conditions. In recent years, ample evidence supports key contributions of MDSC to tumour progression through both immune-mediated mechanisms and those not directly associated with immune suppression. MDSC are the subject of intensive research with >500 papers published in 2015 alone. However, the phenotypic, morphological and functional heterogeneity of these cells generates confusion in investigation and analysis of their roles in inflammatory responses. The purpose of this communication is to suggest characterization standards in the burgeoning field of MDSC research.

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.).

BACKGROUND: mutations occur in approximately 40% of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. The PI3Kα-specific inhibitor alpelisib has shown antitumor activity in early studies. METHODS: -mutated cancer. Secondary end points included overall response and safety. RESULTS: -mutated cancer was greater with alpelisib-fulvestrant than with placebo-fulvestrant (26.6% vs. 12.8%); among patients with measurable disease in this cohort, the percentages were 35.7% and 16.2%, respectively. In the overall population, the most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were hyperglycemia (36.6% in the alpelisib-fulvestrant group vs. 0.7% in the placebo-fulvestrant group) and rash (9.9% vs. 0.3%). Diarrhea of grade 3 occurred in 6.7% of patients in the alpelisib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 0.3% of those in the placebo-fulvestrant group; no diarrhea of grade 4 was reported. The percentages of patients who discontinued alpelisib and placebo owing to adverse events were 25.0% and 4.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: -mutated, HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had received endocrine therapy previously. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; SOLAR-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02437318.).

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib inhibits tyrosine kinases, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, MET, and AXL, which are implicated in the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma and the development of resistance to sorafenib, the standard initial treatment for advanced disease. This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial evaluated cabozantinib as compared with placebo in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 707 patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib (60 mg once daily) or matching placebo. Eligible patients had received previous treatment with sorafenib, had disease progression after at least one systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, and may have received up to two previous systemic regimens for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate. RESULTS: At the second planned interim analysis, the trial showed significantly longer overall survival with cabozantinib than with placebo. Median overall survival was 10.2 months with cabozantinib and 8.0 months with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.92; P=0.005). Median progression-free survival was 5.2 months with cabozantinib and 1.9 months with placebo (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.52; P<0.001), and the objective response rates were 4% and less than 1%, respectively (P=0.009). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 68% of patients in the cabozantinib group and in 36% in the placebo group. The most common high-grade events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (17% with cabozantinib vs. 0% with placebo), hypertension (16% vs. 2%), increased aspartate aminotransferase level (12% vs. 7%), fatigue (10% vs. 4%), and diarrhea (10% vs. 2%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, treatment with cabozantinib resulted in longer overall survival and progression-free survival than placebo. The rate of high-grade adverse events in the cabozantinib group was approximately twice that observed in the placebo group. (Funded by Exelixis; CELESTIAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01908426 .).

Tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) form an important component of the hypoxic tumor microenvironment. Here, we investigated the influence of hypoxia on immune checkpoint receptors (programmed death [PD]-1 and CTLA-4) and their respective ligands (PD-1 ligand 1 [PD-L1], PD-L2, CD80, and CD86) on MDSCs. We demonstrate that MDSCs at the tumor site show a differential expression of PD-L1 as compared with MDSCs from peripheral lymphoid organ (spleen). Hypoxia caused a rapid, dramatic, and selective up-regulation of PD-L1 on splenic MDSCs in tumor-bearing mice. This was not limited to MDSCs, as hypoxia also significantly increased the expression of PD-L1 on macrophages, dendritic cells, and tumor cells. Furthermore, PD-L1 up-regulation under hypoxia was dependent on hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) but not HIF-2α. Chromatin immunoprecipitation and luciferase reporter assay revealed direct binding of HIF-1α to a transcriptionally active hypoxia-response element (HRE) in the PD-L1 proximal promoter. Blockade of PD-L1 under hypoxia enhanced MDSC-mediated T cell activation and was accompanied by the down-regulation of MDSCs IL-6 and IL-10. Finally, neutralizing antibodies against IL-10 under hypoxia significantly abrogated the suppressive activity of MDSCs. Simultaneous blockade of PD-L1 along with inhibition of HIF-1α may thus represent a novel approach for cancer immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). METHODS: . RESULTS: for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% CI, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in more than 10% of the patients in either group were neutropenia (59.3% in the ribociclib group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group) and leukopenia (21.0% vs. 0.6%); the rates of discontinuation because of adverse events were 7.5% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021 .).

BACKGROUND: ) mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The efficacy and safety of osimertinib as adjuvant therapy are unknown. METHODS: mutation-positive NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or placebo for 3 years. The primary end point was disease-free survival among patients with stage II to IIIA disease (according to investigator assessment). The secondary end points included disease-free survival in the overall population of patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 682 patients underwent randomization (339 to the osimertinib group and 343 to the placebo group). At 24 months, 90% of the patients with stage II to IIIA disease in the osimertinib group (95% confidence interval [CI], 84 to 93) and 44% of those in the placebo group (95% CI, 37 to 51) were alive and disease-free (overall hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.17; 99.06% CI, 0.11 to 0.26; P<0.001). In the overall population, 89% of the patients in the osimertinib group (95% CI, 85 to 92) and 52% of those in the placebo group (95% CI, 46 to 58) were alive and disease-free at 24 months (overall hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.20; 99.12% CI, 0.14 to 0.30; P<0.001). At 24 months, 98% of the patients in the osimertinib group (95% CI, 95 to 99) and 85% of those in the placebo group (95% CI, 80 to 89) were alive and did not have central nervous system disease (overall hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.33). Overall survival data were immature; 29 patients died (9 in the osimertinib group and 20 in the placebo group). No new safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: mutation-positive NSCLC, disease-free survival was significantly longer among those who received osimertinib than among those who received placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ADAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02511106.).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

BACKGROUND: V600E mutation have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months after failure of initial therapy. Inhibition of BRAF alone has limited activity because of pathway reactivation through epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. METHODS: V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer who had had disease progression after one or two previous regimens. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab (triplet-therapy group); encorafenib and cetuximab (doublet-therapy group); or the investigators' choice of either cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) (control group). The primary end points were overall survival and objective response rate in the triplet-therapy group as compared with the control group. A secondary end point was overall survival in the doublet-therapy group as compared with the control group. We report here the results of a prespecified interim analysis. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.0 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.70; P<0.001). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 18 to 35) in the triplet-therapy group and 2% (95% CI, 0 to 7) in the control group (P<0.001). The median overall survival in the doublet-therapy group was 8.4 months (hazard ratio for death vs. control, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 58% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, in 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and in 61% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: V600E mutation. (Funded by Array BioPharma and others; BEACON CRC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02928224; EudraCT number, 2015-005805-35.).

BACKGROUND: Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is associated with increased melanoma-specific survival (i.e., survival until death from melanoma) among patients with node-positive intermediate-thickness melanomas (1.2 to 3.5 mm). The value of completion lymph-node dissection for patients with sentinel-node metastases is not clear. METHODS: In an international trial, we randomly assigned patients with sentinel-node metastases detected by means of standard pathological assessment or a multimarker molecular assay to immediate completion lymph-node dissection (dissection group) or nodal observation with ultrasonography (observation group). The primary end point was melanoma-specific survival. Secondary end points included disease-free survival and the cumulative rate of nonsentinel-node metastasis. RESULTS: Immediate completion lymph-node dissection was not associated with increased melanoma-specific survival among 1934 patients with data that could be evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis or among 1755 patients in the per-protocol analysis. In the per-protocol analysis, the mean (±SE) 3-year rate of melanoma-specific survival was similar in the dissection group and the observation group (86±1.3% and 86±1.2%, respectively; P=0.42 by the log-rank test) at a median follow-up of 43 months. The rate of disease-free survival was slightly higher in the dissection group than in the observation group (68±1.7% and 63±1.7%, respectively; P=0.05 by the log-rank test) at 3 years, based on an increased rate of disease control in the regional nodes at 3 years (92±1.0% vs. 77±1.5%; P<0.001 by the log-rank test); these results must be interpreted with caution. Nonsentinel-node metastases, identified in 11.5% of the patients in the dissection group, were a strong, independent prognostic factor for recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.78; P=0.005). Lymphedema was observed in 24.1% of the patients in the dissection group and in 6.3% of those in the observation group. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate completion lymph-node dissection increased the rate of regional disease control and provided prognostic information but did not increase melanoma-specific survival among patients with melanoma and sentinel-node metastases. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; MSLT-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297895 .).

BACKGROUND: V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

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: -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.

IMPORTANCE: Statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefits of CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors in combination with fulvestrant for hormone receptor (HR)-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients regardless of menopausal status after prior endocrine therapy (ET) has not yet been demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant on OS at the prespecified interim of MONARCH 2 (338 events) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during prior ET. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for treatment of premenopausal or perimenopausal women (with ovarian suppression) and postmenopausal women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC that progressed during ET. Patients were enrolled between August 7, 2014, and December 29, 2015. Analyses for this report were conducted at the time of database lock on June 20, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg, every 12 hours on a continuous schedule plus fulvestrant, 500 mg, per label. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary vs secondary). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a gated key secondary end point. The boundary P value for the interim analysis was .02. RESULTS: Of 669 women enrolled, 446 (median [range] age, 59 [32-91] years) were randomized to the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm and 223 (median [range] age, 62 [32-87] years) were randomized to the placebo plus fulvestrant arm. At the prespecified interim, 338 deaths (77% of the planned 441 at the final analysis) were observed in the intent-to-treat population, with a median OS of 46.7 months for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 37.3 months for placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.757; 95% CI, 0.606-0.945; P = .01). Improvement in OS was consistent across all stratification factors. Among stratification factors, more pronounced effects were observed in patients with visceral disease (HR, 0.675; 95% CI, 0.511-0.891) and primary resistance to prior ET (HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.451-1.043). Time to second disease progression (median, 23.1 months vs 20.6 months), time to chemotherapy (median, 50.2 months vs 22.1 months), and chemotherapy-free survival (median, 25.5 months vs 18.2 months) were also statistically significantly improved in the abemaciclib arm vs placebo arm. No new safety signals were observed for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful median OS improvement of 9.4 months for patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC who progressed after prior ET regardless of menopausal status. Abemaciclib substantially delayed the receipt of subsequent chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703.

PURPOSE: Many patients with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer (EBC) will not experience recurrence or have distant recurrence with currently available standard therapies. However, up to 30% of patients with high-risk clinical and/or pathologic features may experience distant recurrence, many in the first few years. Superior treatment options are needed to prevent early recurrence and development of metastases for this group of patients. Abemaciclib is an oral, continuously dosed, CDK4/6 inhibitor approved for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Efficacy and safety of abemaciclib in ABC supported evaluation in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: This open-label, phase III study included patients with HR+, HER2-, high-risk EBC, who had surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes, or one to three nodes and either tumor size ≥ 5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥ 20%, were eligible and randomly assigned (1:1) to standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years). The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and secondary end points included distant relapse-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% versus 88.7%, respectively. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of abemaciclib. CONCLUSION: Abemaciclib when combined with ET is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to demonstrate a significant improvement in IDFS in patients with HR+, HER2- node-positive EBC at high risk of early recurrence.

IMPORTANCE: BRAF V600E is a prominent oncogene in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), but its role in PTC-related patient mortality has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between BRAF V600E mutation and PTC-related mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of 1849 patients (1411 women and 438 men) with a median age of 46 years (interquartile range, 34-58 years) and an overall median follow-up time of 33 months (interquartile range, 13-67 months) after initial treatment at 13 centers in 7 countries between 1978 and 2011. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient deaths specifically caused by PTC. RESULTS: Overall, mortality was 5.3% (45/845; 95% CI, 3.9%-7.1%) vs 1.1% (11/1004; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.0%) (P < .001) in BRAF V600E-positive vs mutation-negative patients. Deaths per 1000 person-years in the analysis of all PTC were 12.87 (95% CI, 9.61-17.24) vs 2.52 (95% CI, 1.40-4.55) in BRAF V600E-positive vs mutation-negative patients; the hazard ratio (HR) was 2.66 (95% CI, 1.30-5.43) after adjustment for age at diagnosis, sex, and medical center. Deaths per 1000 person-years in the analysis of the conventional variant of PTC were 11.80 (95% CI, 8.39-16.60) vs 2.25 (95% CI, 1.01-5.00) in BRAF V600E-positive vs mutation-negative patients; the adjusted HR was 3.53 (95% CI, 1.25-9.98). When lymph node metastasis, extrathyroidal invasion, and distant metastasis were also included in the model, the association of BRAF V600E with mortality for all PTC was no longer significant (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.53-2.76). A higher BRAF V600E-associated patient mortality was also observed in several clinicopathological subcategories, but statistical significance was lost with adjustment for patient age, sex, and medical center. For example, in patients with lymph node metastasis, the deaths per 1000 person-years were 26.26 (95% CI, 19.18-35.94) vs 5.93 (95% CI, 2.96-11.86) in BRAF V600E-positive vs mutation-negative patients (unadjusted HR, 4.43 [95% CI, 2.06-9.51]; adjusted HR, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.62-3.47]). In patients with distant tumor metastasis, deaths per 1000 person-years were 87.72 (95% CI, 62.68-122.77) vs 32.28 (95% CI, 16.14-64.55) in BRAF V600E-positive vs mutation-negative patients (unadjusted HR, 2.63 [95% CI, 1.21-5.72]; adjusted HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.27-2.62]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this retrospective multicenter study, the presence of the BRAF V600E mutation was significantly associated with increased cancer-related mortality among patients with PTC. Because overall mortality in PTC is low and the association was not independent of tumor features, how to use BRAF V600E to manage mortality risk in patients with PTC is unclear. These findings support further investigation of the prognostic and therapeutic implications of BRAF V600E status in PTC.

Purpose The aim of the current study was to conduct a pooled analysis of studies that have investigated the prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in early-stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Methods Participating studies had evaluated the percentage infiltration of stromally located TILs (sTILs) that were quantified in the same manner in patient diagnostic samples of early-stage TNBC treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy with or without taxanes. Cox proportional hazards regression models stratified by trial were used for invasive disease-free survival (iDFS; primary end point), distant disease-free survival (D-DFS), and overall survival (OS), fitting sTILs as a continuous variable adjusted for clinicopathologic factors. Results We collected individual data from 2,148 patients from nine studies. Average age was 50 years (range, 22 to 85 years), and 33% of patients were node negative. The average value of sTILs was 23% (standard deviation, 20%), and 77% of patients had 1% or more sTILs. sTILs were significantly lower with older age ( P = .001), larger tumor size ( P = .01), more nodal involvement ( P = .02), and lower histologic grade ( P = .001). A total of 736 iDFS and 548 D-DFS events and 533 deaths were observed. In the multivariable model, sTILs added significant independent prognostic information for all end points (likelihood ratio χ 2 , 48.9 iDFS; P &lt; .001; χ 2 , 55.8 D-DFS; P &lt; .001; χ 2 , 48.5 OS; P &lt; .001). Each 10% increment in sTILs corresponded to an iDFS hazard ratio of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.91) for iDFS, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88) for D-DFS, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.89) for OS. In node-negative patients with sTILs ≥ 30%, 3-year iDFS was 92% (95% CI, 89% to 98%), D-DFS was 97% (95% CI, 95% to 99%), and OS was 99% (95% CI, 97% to 100%). Conclusion This pooled data analysis confirms the strong prognostic role of sTILs in early-stage TNBC and excellent survival of patients with high sTILs after adjuvant chemotherapy and supports the integration of sTILs in a clinicopathologic prognostic model for patients with TNBC. This model can be found at www.tilsinbreastcancer.org .

BACKGROUND: occurs in 3 to 4% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tepotinib, a highly selective MET inhibitor, in this patient population. METHODS: exon 14 skipping mutation was detected on liquid biopsy or tissue biopsy. RESULTS: As of January 1, 2020, a total of 152 patients had received tepotinib, and 99 patients had been followed for at least 9 months. The response rate by independent review was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36 to 57), with a median duration of response of 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.2 to could not be estimated) in the combined-biopsy group. The response rate was 48% (95% CI, 36 to 61) among 66 patients in the liquid-biopsy group and 50% (95% CI, 37 to 63) among 60 patients in the tissue-biopsy group; 27 patients had positive results according to both methods. The investigator-assessed response rate was 56% (95% CI, 45 to 66) and was similar regardless of the previous therapy received for advanced or metastatic disease. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were considered by investigators to be related to tepotinib therapy were reported in 28% of the patients, including peripheral edema in 7%. Adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of tepotinib in 11% of the patients. A molecular response, as measured in circulating free DNA, was observed in 67% of the patients with matched liquid-biopsy samples at baseline and during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: exon 14 skipping mutation, the use of tepotinib was associated with a partial response in approximately half the patients. Peripheral edema was the main toxic effect of grade 3 or higher. (Funded by Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; VISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02864992.).

PURPOSE: Standard therapy for glioblastoma (GBM) is temozolomide (TMZ) administration, initially concurrent with radiotherapy (RT), and subsequently as maintenance therapy. The radiologic images obtained in this setting can be difficult to interpret since they may show radiation-induced pseudoprogression (psPD) rather than disease progression. METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed GBM underwent radiotherapy plus continuous daily temozolomide (75 mg/m(2)/d), followed by 12 maintenance temozolomide cycles (150 to 200 mg/m(2) for 5 days every 28 days) if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed no enhancement suggesting a tumor; otherwise, chemotherapy was delivered until complete response or unequivocal progression. The first MRI scan was performed 1 month after completing combined chemoradiotherapy. RESULTS: In 103 patients (mean age, 52 years [range 20 to 73 years]), total resection, subtotal resection, and biopsy were obtained in 51, 51, and 1 cases, respectively. MGMT promoter was methylated in 36 patients (35%) and unmethylated in 67 patients (65%). Lesion enlargement, evidenced at the first MRI scan in 50 of 103 patients, was subsequently classified as psPD in 32 patients and early disease progression in 18 patients. PsPD was recorded in 21 (91%) of 23 methylated MGMT promoter and 11 (41%) of 27 unmethylated MGMT promoter (P = .0002) patients. MGMT status (P = .001) and psPD detection (P = .045) significantly influenced survival. CONCLUSION: PsPD has a clinical impact on chemotherapy-treated GBM, as it may express the glioma killing effects of treatment and is significantly correlated with MGMT status. Improvement in the early recognition of psPD patterns and knowledge of mechanisms underlying this phenomenon are crucial to eliminating biases in evaluating the results of clinical trials and guaranteeing effective treatment.