An observational study of drug utilization and associated outcomes among adult patients diagnosed with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma treated with first-line anti-PD-1 monotherapies or BRAF/MEK inhibitors in a community-based oncology setting.

INTRODUCTION: Anti-PD-1 monotherapies (aPD-1) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) changed the BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma treatment landscape. This study aimed to improve the understanding of real-world treatment patterns and optimal treatment sequence. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma patients who initiated 1L aPD-1 or BRAF/MEKi in the US Oncology Network between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017, followed through 31 December 2018. Patient and treatment characteristics were assessed descriptively, with Kaplan-Meier methods used for time-to-event endpoints. As the primary analysis, overall survival (OS) and physician-assessed progression-free survival (rwPFS) were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard regression models and propensity score matching (n = 49). RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were included (median age 61 years, 62.9% male, 89.7% white): 36.2% received aPD-1 and 63.8% BRAF/MEKi. Median OS and rwPFS were longer among aPD-1 vs BRAF/MEKi patients (OS: not reached vs 13.9 months, log-rank P = .0169; rwPFS: 7.6 vs 6.5 months, log-rank P = .0144). Receipt of aPD-1 was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.602 vs BRAF/MEKi [95%CI 0.382-0.949]; P = .0287). Among patients without an event within 6 months of 1L initiation, receipt of aPD-1 was associated with a decreased risk of progression or death from 6 months onwards (HR = 0.228 [95%CI 0.106-0.493]; P = .0002). This association was not observed among patients within 6 months of 1L initiation (HR = 1.146; 95% CI 0.755-1.738). Results from the propensity score-matched pairs were consistent with these trends. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a clinical benefit of 1L aPD-1 compared to BRAF/MEKi after 6 months of treatment for BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. Future research should explore factors associated with early progression and their relationship with clinical outcomes.

FDG-PET as a predictive biomarker for therapy with everolimus in metastatic renal cell cancer.

The mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) inhibitor, everolimus, affects tumor growth by targeting cellular metabolic proliferation pathways and delays renal cell carcinoma (RCC) progression. Preclinical evidence suggests that baseline elevated tumor glucose metabolism as quantified by FDG-PET ([(18)F] fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission tomography) may predict antitumor activity. Metastatic RCC (mRCC) patients refractory to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway inhibition were treated with standard dose everolimus. FDG-PET scans were obtained at baseline and 2 weeks; serial computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained at baseline and every 8 weeks. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the most FDG avid lesion, average SUVmax of all measured lesions and their corresponding 2-week relative changes were examined for association with 8-week change in tumor size. A total of 63 patients were enrolled; 50 were evaluable for the primary endpoint of which 48 had both PET scans. Patient characteristics included the following: 36 (72%) clear cell histology and median age 59 (range: 37-80). Median pre- and 2-week treatment average SUVmax were 6.6 (1-17.9) and 4.2 (1-13.9), respectively. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST)-based measurements demonstrated an average change in tumor burden of 0.2% (-32.7% to 35.9%) at 8 weeks. Relative change in average SUVmax was the best predictor of change in tumor burden (all evaluable P = 0.01; clear cell subtype P = 0.02), with modest correlation. Baseline average SUVmax was correlated with overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.023; 0.020), but not with change in tumor burden. Everolimus therapy decreased SUVs on follow-up PET scans in mRCC patients, but changes were only modestly correlated with changes in tumor size. Thus, clinical use of FDG-PET-based biomarkers is challenged by high variability.

Efficacy and toxicity of sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with severe renal impairment or on haemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: To further investigate the effect of sunitinib, which is currently a standard of care for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), in patients with severe renal impairment or those undergoing dialysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical databases were used to identify all patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib in seven institutions internationally. Databases were searched to identify only those patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² or those who had end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis. Baseline characteristics, adverse event data, response and progression-free survival were recorded. RESULTS: Nineteen patients met the inclusion criteria, 10 of whom were undergoing haemodialysis. Of the nine non-dialysis-dependent patients at drug initiation, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 27 mL/min/1.73 m² (range 23-29). Baseline characteristics included a median age of 61 years (range 44-77); 17 patients had a Karnofsky performance status of >80; eight patients had more than two metastatic sites and 17 had undergone prior nephrectomy. The estimated median progression-free survival of this cohort was 43 weeks (range 7 to 158+) and progression has not yet been reached in six patients. Partial response or stable disease was observed as best response in 15 patients. The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, diarrhoea, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), nausea and vomiting and rash. Grade three treatment-related adverse events including fatigue (seven patients), HFSR (two patients), diarrhoea (one patient), rash (one patient) and stomatitis (one patient) occurred in a total of 12 patients. Only one patient experienced a grade four adverse event (HFSR). Only diarrhoea (P = 0.0002), HFSR (P < 0.0001) and neutropenia (P = 0.001) were more common in patients undergoing haemodialysis compared with non-dialysis-dependent patients. Four of the non-dialysis dependent patients started at a dose of 50 mg compared with three of the patients undergoing haemodialysis. However five and two of the patients undergoing haemodialysis started at doses of 37.5 mg and 25 mg daily, respectively, compared with four and one of the non-dialysis-dependent patients. All patients took sunitinib for 4 out of every 6 weeks. Dose reductions during treatment were performed in eight patients but only one patient required discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease on haemodialysis can be safely treated with sunitinib at doses of 25-50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by a 2-week break. The observed efficacy of therapy is similar to that reported in patients with normal renal function. These preliminary results warrant confirmation in a larger cohort of patients.