Maurizio Voi

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.).

BACKGROUND: Everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, has been used for various benign tumours associated with tuberous sclerosis complex. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two trough exposure concentrations of everolimus, 3-7 ng/mL (low exposure) and 9-15 ng/mL (high exposure), compared with placebo as adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant focal-onset seizures in tuberous sclerosis complex. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, eligible patients aged 2-65 years with tuberous sclerosis complex and treatment-resistant seizures (≥16 in an 8-week baseline phase) receiving one to three concomitant antiepileptic drugs were recruited from 99 centres across 25 countries. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via permuted-block randomisation (block size of six) implemented by Interactive Response Technology software, to receive placebo, low-exposure everolimus, or high-exposure everolimus. Randomisation was stratified by age subgroup (<6 years, 6 to <12 years, 12 to <18 years, and ≥18 years). Patients, investigators, site personnel, and the sponsor's study team were masked to treatment allocation. The starting dose of everolimus depended on age, body-surface area, and concomitant use of cytochrome 3A4/P-glycoprotein inducers. Dose adjustments were done to attain target trough ranges during a 6-week titration period, and as needed during a 12-week maintenance period of core phase. Patients or their caregivers recorded events in a seizure diary throughout the study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the frequency of seizures during the maintenance period, defined as response rate (the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) and median percentage reduction in seizure frequency, in all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01713946. FINDINGS: Between July 3, 2013, and May 29, 2015, 366 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to placebo (n=119), low-exposure everolimus, (n=117), or high-exposure everolimus (n=130). The response rate was 15·1% with placebo (95% CI 9·2-22·8; 18 patients) compared with 28·2% for low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 20·3-37·3; 33 patients; p=0·0077) and 40·0% for high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 31·5-49·0; 52 patients; p<0·0001). The median percentage reduction in seizure frequency was 14·9% (95% CI 0·1-21·7) with placebo versus 29·3% with low-exposure everolimus (95% CI 18·8-41·9; p=0·0028) and 39·6% with high-exposure everolimus (95% CI 35·0-48·7; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 13 (11%) patients in the placebo group, 21 (18%) in the low-exposure group, and 31 (24%) in the high-exposure group. Serious adverse events were reported in three (3%) patients who received placebo, 16 (14%) who received low-exposure everolimus, and 18 (14%) who received high-exposure everolimus. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in two (2%) patients in the placebo group versus six (5%) in the low-exposure group and four (3%) in the high-exposure group. INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive everolimus treatment significantly reduced seizure frequency with a tolerable safety profile compared with placebo in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex and treatment-resistant seizures. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

IMPORTANCE: Estrogen receptor α (ESR1) mutations found in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) promote ligand-independent receptor activation and resistance to estrogen-deprivation therapy in laboratory models. The prevalence of these mutations and their potential impact on clinical outcomes has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of ESR1 mutations (Y537S and D538G) in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive MBC and determine whether mutation is associated with inferior outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From December 16, 2014, to August 26, 2015, we analyzed cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from baseline plasma samples from participants in the BOLERO-2 double-blind phase 3 study that randomized patients from 189 centers in 24 countries with MBC to exemestane plus placebo or exemestane plus everolimus. The study enrolled postmenopausal women with a diagnosis of MBC and prior exposure to an aromatase inhibitor. Baseline plasma samples were available from 541 of 724 patients (74.7%). We assessed the effect of mutation on overall survival of the population and the effect of mutation on progression-free survival (PFS) by treatment arm. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to treatment with exemestane (25 mg oral daily) together with everolimus (10 mg oral daily) or with placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 2 most frequent mutations in ESR1 (Y537S and D538G) were analyzed from cfDNA using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction and samples scored as wild-type, D538G, Y537S, or double mutant. Cox-proportional hazards model was used to assess PFS in patient subgroups defined by mutations, and the effect of each mutation on overall survival. RESULTS: Of 541 evaluable patients, 156 (28.8%) had ESR1 mutation D538G (21.1%) and/or Y537S (13.3%), and 30 had both. These mutations were associated with shorter overall survival (wild-type, 32.1 months [95% CI, 28.09-36.40 months]; D538G, 25.99 months [95% CI, 19.19-32.36 months]; Y537S, 19.98 months [13.01-29.31 months]; both mutations, 15.15 months [95% CI, 10.87-27.43 months]). The D538G group (hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.02-0.57]) derived a similar PFS benefit as wild type from addition of everolimus to exemestane. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ESR1 mutations are prevalent in ER-positive aromatase inhibitor-treated MBC. Both Y537S and D538G mutations are associated with more aggressive disease biology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00863655.

Purpose This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy. Patients and Methods A total of 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade) or ≥ pT3, including N1, clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib or placebo for 1 year; 403 patients received a starting dose of 800 mg or placebo. To address toxicity attrition, the 800-mg starting dose was lowered to 600 mg, and the primary end point analysis was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) for pazopanib 600 mg versus placebo (n = 1,135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in the intent-to-treat (ITT) pazopanib 600 mg group (ITT 600mg ), and DFS follow-up analysis was performed 12 months later. Secondary end point analyses included DFS with ITT pazopanib 800 mg (ITT 800mg ) and safety. Results The primary analysis results of DFS ITT 600mg favored pazopanib but did not show a significant improvement over placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = .165). The secondary analysis of DFS in ITT 800mg (n = 403) yielded an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.94). Follow-up analysis in ITT 600mg yielded an HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14). Increased ALT and AST were common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the pazopanib 600 mg (ALT, 16%; AST, 5%) and 800 mg (ALT, 18%; AST, 7%) groups. Conclusion The results of the primary DFS analysis of pazopanib 600 mg showed no benefit over placebo in the adjuvant setting.