Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (IMspire150): primary analysis of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: IMspire150 aimed to evaluate first-line combination treatment with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint therapy in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced or metastatic melanoma. METHODS: IMspire150 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study done at 112 institutes in 20 countries. Patients with unresectable stage IIIc-IV, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to 28-day cycles of atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) or atezolizumab placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group). In cycle 1, all patients received vemurafenib and cobimetinib only; atezolizumab placebo was added from cycle 2 onward. Randomisation was stratified by lactate dehydrogenase concentration and geographical region. Blinding for atezolizumab was achieved by means of an identical intravenous placebo, and blinding for vemurafenib was achieved by means of a placebo tablet. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. This trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672) is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 777 patients were screened and 514 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (n=256) or control group (n=258). At a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8), progression-free survival as assessed by the study investigator was significantly prolonged with atezolizumab versus control (15·1 vs 10·6 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0·78; 95% CI 0·63-0·97; p=0·025). Common treatment-related adverse events (>30%) in the atezolizumab and control groups were blood creatinine phosphokinase increased (51·3% vs 44·8%), diarrhoea (42·2% vs 46·6%), rash (40·9%, both groups), arthralgia (39·1% vs 28·1%), pyrexia (38·7% vs 26·0%), alanine aminotransferase increased (33·9% vs 22·8%), and lipase increased (32·2% vs 27·4%); 13% of patients in the atezolizumab group and 16% in the control group stopped all treatment because of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The addition of atezolizumab to targeted therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable and significantly increased progression-free survival in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Atezolizumab with or without cobimetinib versus regorafenib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (IMblaze370): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer is typically unresponsive to immunotherapy. This phase 3 study was designed to assess atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report the comparison of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab monotherapy versus regorafenib in the third-line setting. METHODS: IMblaze 370 is a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial, done at 73 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and disease progression on or intolerance to at least two previous systemic chemotherapy regimens were enrolled. We used permuted-block randomisation (block size four) to assign patients (2:1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus cobimetinib (60 mg orally once daily for days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle), atezolizumab monotherapy (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks), or regorafenib (160 mg orally once daily for days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). Stratification factors were extended RAS status (wild-type vs mutant) and time since diagnosis of first metastasis (<18 months vs ≥18 months). Recruitment of patients with high microsatellite instability was capped at 5%. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the population of patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. IMblaze370 is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02788279. FINDINGS: Between July 27, 2016, and Jan 19, 2017, 363 patients were enrolled (183 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 90 in the regorafenib group). At data cutoff (March 9, 2018), median follow-up was 7·3 months (IQR 3·7-13·6). Median overall survival was 8·87 months (95% CI 7·00-10·61) with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib, 7·10 months (6·05-10·05) with atezolizumab, and 8·51 months (6·41-10·71) with regorafenib; the hazard ratio was 1·00 (95% CI 0·73-1·38; p=0·99) for the combination versus regorafenib and 1·19 (0·83-1·71; p=0·34) for atezolizumab versus regorafenib. Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 109 (61%) of 179 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 28 (31%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 46 (58%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events in the combination group were diarrhoea (20 [11%] of 179), anaemia (ten [6%]), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (12 [7%]), and fatigue (eight [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 71 (40%) of 179 patients in the combination group, 15 (17%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 18 (23%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group (sepsis) and one in the regorafenib group (intestinal perforation). INTERPRETATION: IMblaze370 did not meet its primary endpoint of improved overall survival with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab versus regorafenib. The safety of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib was consistent with those of the individual drugs. These results underscore the challenge of expanding the benefit of immunotherapy to patients whose tumours have lower baseline levels of immune inflammation, such as those with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech Inc.

Clinical features of serous retinopathy observed with cobimetinib in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma treated in the randomized coBRIM study.

BACKGROUND: Serous chorioretinopathy has been associated with MEK inhibitors, including cobimetinib. We describe the clinical features of serous retinopathy observed with cobimetinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutated melanoma treated in the Phase III coBRIM study. METHODS: In the coBRIM study, 493 patients were treated in two randomly assigned treatment groups: cobimetinib and vemurafenib (n = 247) or vemurafenib (n = 246). All patients underwent prospective ophthalmic examinations at screening, at regular intervals during the study, and whenever ocular symptoms developed. Patients with serous retinopathy were identified in the study database using a group of relevant and synonymous adverse event terms. RESULTS: Eighty-six serous retinopathy events were reported in 70 patients (79 events in 63 cobimetinib and vemurafenib-treated patients vs seven events in seven vemurafenib-treated patients). Most patients with serous retinopathy identified by ophthalmic examination had no symptoms or had mild symptoms, among them reduced visual acuity, blurred vision, dyschromatopsia, and photophobia. Serous retinopathy usually occurred early during cobimetinib and vemurafenib treatment; median time to onset was 1.0 month. Most events were managed by observation and continuation of cobimetinib without dose modification and resolved or were resolving by the data cutoff date (19 Sept 2014). CONCLUSIONS: Cobimetinib treatment was associated with serous retinopathy in patients with BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Retinopathy was generally asymptomatic or mild. Periodic ophthalmologic evaluations at regular intervals and at the manifestation of any visual disturbance are recommended to facilitate early detection and resolution of serous retinopathy while patients are taking cobimetinib. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01689519). First received: September 18, 2012.

A Phase Ib Dose-Escalation Study of the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Cobimetinib and Duligotuzumab in Patients with Previously Treated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Cancers with Mutant KRAS.

LESSONS LEARNED: Cobimetinib and duligotuzumab were well tolerated as single agents and in combination with other agents.The cobimetinib and duligotuzumab combination was associated with increased toxicity, most notably gastrointestinal, and limited efficacy in the patient population tested. BACKGROUND: KRAS-mutant tumors possess abnormal mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) pathway signaling, leading to dysregulated cell proliferation. Cobimetinib blocks MAPK signaling. The dual-action antibody duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) inhibits ligand binding to both epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3). Blockade of EGFR/HER3 and inhibition of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) in KRAS-mutant tumors may provide additive benefit. METHODS: Patients with KRAS-mutant solid tumors were eligible for this phase Ib dose-escalation study with a planned expansion phase. Duligotuzumab was given intravenously (IV) at 1,100 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), while cobimetinib was given orally in a standard 3 + 3 design to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of this combination. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included grade 4 hypokalemia and grade 3 mucosal inflammation, asthenia, and dermatitis acneiform. Seventy percent of patients experienced grade 3 or worse adverse events (AEs). Five (22%) and 12 (52%) patients missed at least 1 dose of duligotuzumab and cobimetinib, respectively, and 9 (39%) patients required a cobimetinib dose reduction. Three (13%) patients discontinued due to an AE. Best response was limited to 9 patients with stable disease and 13 patients with progressive disease. CONCLUSION: Given the limited tolerability and efficacy of this combination, the study did not proceed to expansion stage and closed for enrollment.

Multifocal breast cancer in women < or =35 years old.

BACKGROUND: The relation that multifocality at diagnosis had to survival in women < 35 years of age was evaluated. METHODS: Three hundred women seen at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1990 and 2002 were identified. Multifocality was defined as the presence of 2 or more foci of the same tumor clearly separated in the same breast. Patient characteristics and outcomes were tabulated and compared between uni- and multifocality. Survival outcomes were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between groups with the log-rank statistic. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to determine the association between multifocality and survival outcomes. RESULTS: The median age was 32 years (range, 17-35). There were 58 patients (19%) with multifocal disease. At a median follow-up of 43.9 months there have been 101 deaths and 138 recurrences. Five-year overall survival (OS) estimates were 69.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.1%, 77.1%) for patients with unifocal disease and 67.3% (95% CI, 54.6%, 83.0%) for patients with multifocal disease (P = .70). Five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 44.4% (95% CI, 37.1%, 53.2%) for patients with unifocal disease and 57.1% (5% CI, 43.3%, 75.4%) for patients with multifocal disease, (P = .36). Nuclear grade was found to be an independent predictor of OS and RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.92, 95% CI, 1.24-6.87; HR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.13-3.83, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Multifocality does not appear to influence prognosis in patients < 35 years of age. Nuclear grade continues to be an important prognostic factor for breast cancer in this age group.

Association between clinical characteristics and risk-reduction interventions in women who underwent BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: a single-institution study.

BACKGROUND: Women who are at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancers, especially BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, face a myriad of risk-reduction options, including increased surveillance, chemoprevention, prophylactic oophorectomy, and prophylactic mastectomy. However, little is known about which clinical, demographic, or cancer-related factors are associated with risk-reduction interventions. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of records for 554 women who had undergone testing at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between 2000 and 2006 for deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations. Data were collected on the risk-reduction interventions these women adopted after they underwent genetic testing. These data were tested for associations with demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among the 554 women who underwent genetic testing for BRCA mutation, 78 were found to have a deleterious mutation in the BRCA1 gene, and 54 had a mutation in the BRCA 2 gene. Of the 554 women, 85 underwent prophylactic mastectomy, 30 prophylactic oophorectomy, and 52 both surgeries; 387 women opted for surveillance. Women who had BRCA mutations, a history of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or previous breast biopsies were more likely to have prophylactic surgery. Women with a family history of ovarian cancer were more likely to undergo prophylactic oophorectomy. Women with a personal history of ovarian cancer or advanced breast cancer were more likely to undergo surveillance only. Women with breast cancer who had had a total mastectomy as part of their prior breast cancer treatment underwent prophylactic mastectomy more frequently than women who either had breast-conserving surgery or no history of breast cancer. In multivariate analysis, only positive BRCA mutation carrier status was associated with having had prophylactic surgery. In addition, breast cancer history was significantly associated with prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Women who were BRCA carriers, women who had a history of breast cancer, DCIS, or breast biopsy, or had a family history of ovarian cancer were more likely to have undergone surgery for cancer risk reduction. Women with ovarian cancer or advanced breast cancer were more likely to have undergone surveillance.

Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy compared with surveillance in women with BRCA mutations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate clinical factors associated with choosing prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) over surveillance in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2005, 139 women who tested positive for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were identified. Thirty-three women were excluded due to a personal history of ovarian or fallopian tube cancer before genetic testing, resulting in 106 women for the final analysis. The characteristics of women who underwent prophylactic BSO were compared with those choosing surveillance. RESULTS: Sixty-five of the BRCA mutation carriers (61%) underwent prophylactic BSO. Median age at BSO was 45.6 years. Median time from disclosure of genetic test results to surgery was 4.6 months. Eighty-five percent of women who underwent prophylactic BSO were parous compared with 66% of women who chose surveillance (P = .03). A previous diagnosis of breast cancer was noted in 72% of women who underwent prophylactic BSO compared with 46% of women undergoing surveillance (P < .01). Fifty-two women (80%) had hysterectomy performed at the time of BSO. Two women had incidental ovarian cancer diagnosed at time of surgery. CONCLUSION: Age greater than 40 years, parity, and a personal history of breast cancer were associated with choosing prophylactic BSO in our cohort. A short time interval was noted from the time of receiving positive genetic test results to undergoing prophylactic surgery.

Treatment of metastatic breast cancer with trastuzumab and vinorelbine during pregnancy.

The management of breast cancer during pregnancy is a crucial clinical issue. It is important to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy on a woman and her fetus. Studies from our institution have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of treating women with adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide during the second or third trimester of pregnancy. However, the literature regarding the treatment of metastatic breast cancer in a pregnant patient is scarce. In this article, we describe the successful treatment of a woman at 27 weeks of pregnancy with recurrent HER2/neu-overexpressing breast cancer who was symptomatic from multiple liver metastases. Per our review of the literature and to our knowledge, she is the first patient to be treated with weekly vinorelbine plus trastuzumab. Our patient had near complete resolution of her disease and delivered a healthy male infant at 34 weeks of gestation.