Trametinib和Dabrafenib对BRAF突变黑色素瘤疗效优于化疗

2012-06-07 不详 网络

芝加哥(EGMN)——美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)年会公布的两项III期临床研究显示,与化疗相比,trametinib和dabrafenib这两种通过干扰BRAF通路信号发挥作用的新型口服靶向药物,分别使携带BRAF突变的晚期黑色素瘤患者的进展或死亡风险降低55%和70%。此外,这些药物的安全性也较好。因此,trametinib和dabrafenib有望与vemurafenib比肩,后者是目前唯一



芝加哥(EGMN)——美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)年会公布的两项III期临床研究显示,与化疗相比,trametinib和dabrafenib这两种通过干扰BRAF通路信号发挥作用的新型口服靶向药物,分别使携带BRAF突变的晚期黑色素瘤患者的进展或死亡风险降低55%和70%。此外,这些药物的安全性也较好。因此,trametinib和dabrafenib有望与vemurafenib比肩,后者是目前唯一被批准专门用于治疗BRAF突变黑色素瘤的靶向药物。

 

在第1项研究(METRIC)中,法国Gustave Roussy研究所皮肤科主任Caroline Robert博士及其同事纳入322例V600E或V600K BRAF突变的局部晚期或转移性黑色素瘤患者,对MEK(位于BRAF下游)口服选择性抑制剂trametinib与化疗(氮烯咪胺或紫杉醇)进行了比较。

 

结果显示,trametinib组≥3级高血压(12% vs. 3%)和皮疹(8% vs. 0%)的发生率较高。与trametinib相关的射血分数降低或心室功能障碍(7%)和脉络膜视网膜病变(<1%)可逆。值得指出的是,接受trametinib治疗的患者无1例发生皮肤鳞状细胞癌,这与在vemurafenib用药者中观察到的不同。trametinib组的中位无进展生存期长于化疗组[4.8个月 vs. 1.5 个月;危险比(HR)=0.45;P<0.0001]。此外,trametinib还降低了死亡风险(HR=0.54;P=0.01)。该研究允许交叉治疗,这无疑对总生存结果产生了一定影响,但即使化疗组有47%的患者交叉至trametinib组,仍观察到两组在总生存方面存在差异。

 

在第2项研究(BREAK-3)中,德国基尔大学医院皮肤科教授Axel Hauschild博士及其同事纳入250例局部晚期或转移性V600E BRAF突变黑色素瘤患者,对BRAF口服抑制剂dabrafenib与化疗(氮烯咪胺)进行了比较。在该研究中,化疗组有68%的患者最终交叉至另一组。

 

结果显示,dabrafenib组的中位无进展生存期长于化疗组(5.1个月 vs. 2.7个月;HR=0.30;P<0.0001)。dabrafenib组的完全或部分应答率是化疗组的2倍多(53% vs. 19%)。总生存数据还非常不成熟;目前仅观察到12%的患者死亡,因此会上未公布总生存结果。dabrafenib组≥3级角化过度(2% vs. 0%)和鳞状细胞癌(5% vs. 0%)发生率较高,而化疗组≥3级血液学不良事件的发生率较高。Hauschild博士表示,鉴于目前BRAF靶向治疗已经可供使用,所有黑色素患者均应进行BRAF突变检测。下一步要探讨dabrafenib与trametinib联合治疗IV期黑色素瘤的效果及作为辅助治疗的效果。

 

纽约大学Langone医学中心的Sylvia Adams博士评论指出,以MEK通路为靶点的治疗(trametinib)对转移性黑色素瘤的效果非常好,不仅可使肿瘤缩小且可延长生存期。以BRAF为靶点的治疗(dabrafenib)对突变黑色素瘤的效果也非常好,可使约半数患者的肿瘤缩小,与vemurafenib的疗效相当,并且dabrafenib引起的皮肤不良反应程度较轻。另外,BRAF抑制剂和MEK抑制剂合用的研究结果令人期待。

 

上述两项研究均由葛兰素史克公司资助。研究者与葛兰素史克等公司存在联系。

 

 

CHICAGO (EGMN) –Two new oral targeted agents that have yielded positive results in phase III clinical trials are likely to change the treatment landscape for the half of patients with melanoma whose tumors have a mutation of BRAF driving their behavior.

 

The drugs – trametinib and dabrafenib – both interfere with signaling in the BRAF pathway and respectively reduced the risk of progression or death by 55% and 70% relative to chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma harboring common BRAF mutations, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. These drugs also had good safety profiles.

 

Thus, trametinib and dabrafenib are likely to join vemurafenib, the only targeted agent currently approved specifically for the treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma.

 

The trials’ findings “show the promise of personalized medicine or precision medicine, using a patient-focused approach that targets treatment to the genetic abnormalities that drive cancer growth and metastatic behavior,” Dr. Sylvia Adams of New York University Langone Medical Center commented in a press briefing that she moderated, where the findings were initially reported.

 

In the first trial, known as METRIC, investigators led by Dr. Caroline Robert, head of the department of dermatology at the Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, compared trametinib – an oral selective inhibitor of MEK, which lies downstream of BRAF – with chemotherapy (dacarbazine or paclitaxel) in 322 patients with V600E or V600K BRAF-mutant locally advanced or metastatic melanoma.

 

Patients in the trametinib group had a higher rate of grade 3 or worse hypertension (12% vs. 3%) and rash (8% vs. 0%). Cases of decreased ejection fraction or ventricular dysfunction (7%) and chorioretinopathy (less than 1%) with the drug were reversible. Of note – in contrast to what has been seen with vemurafenib – none of the patients developed cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas.

 

Median progression-free survival was longer with trametinib than with chemotherapy (4.8 vs. 1.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.45; P less than .0001), according to data reported at the meeting. (Full results are also being simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.)

 

Trametinib reduced the risk of death as well (HR, 0.54; P = .01). “Crossover was allowed,” Dr. Robert noted. “That of course can blend the results of overall survival, but even in spite of this crossover in 47% of the patients [in the chemotherapy group], we still have a difference in overall survival.

 

“Trametinib is the first-in-class MEK inhibitor to show a statistically significant activity in progression-free survival, response rate, and overall survival benefit in a randomized trial and here in this population of BRAF-mutant melanoma patients. The safety profile is very manageable,” she commented. “Thus, this phase III trial provides a really positive risk-benefit ratio of trametinib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and delivers an alternate treatment option for these patients.”

 

Dr. Robert said that she didn’t view it as problematic that oncologists may soon have to select among multiple drugs for this patient population. “Let me remind you, for 50 years, we had nothing. And very recently, we have one drug on the market, a BRAF inhibitor; now, hopefully we will have others. So we are very happy to have more than one drug. The future will tell us how to use these drugs, and we are looking forward to try[ing] the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.”

 

Dr. Adams, the press briefing moderator, characterized the findings as “exciting” for two reasons. “Number one, it shows that in metastatic melanoma, MEK pathway–targeted therapy, as seen here for MEK inhibition, is very effective. So there is tumor shrinkage; there is survival benefit for those patients. And second, it also opens the landscape of treatments for BRAF-mutant melanomas and provides patients with additional options.”

 

In the second trial, known as BREAK-3, a team led by Dr. Axel Hauschild, professor of dermatology at the University Hospital in Kiel, Germany, compared dabrafenib, an oral inhibitor of BRAF, with chemotherapy (dacarbazine) in 250 patients with locally advanced or metastatic V600E BRAF-mutant melanoma. In this trial, 68% of patients in the chemotherapy group ultimately crossed over to the other group.

 

Compared with chemotherapy, dabrafenib improved median progression-free survival (5.1 vs. 2.7 months; HR, 0.30; P less than .0001). The rate of complete or partial response was more than double with the targeted therapy (53% vs. 19%).

 

“The data for overall survival are very immature; only 12% of the patients have died so far, and therefore the data are not presented here,” Dr. Hauschild explained.

 

Dabrafenib was associated with higher rates of grade 3 or worse hyperkeratosis (2% vs. 0%) and squamous cell carcinoma (5% vs. 0%), whereas chemotherapy was associated with higher rates of grade 3 or worse hematologic adverse events.

 

“The next step is the combination of dabrafenib and the drug trametinib, not only for stage IV but also for the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Hauschild commented. In fact, updated results of a phase I/II trial testing the combination are also being reported at the meeting.

 

Given the availability of BRAF-targeted therapy today, all melanomas should have mutational testing at minimum for BRAF status, he said. Additionally, clinical trials will be essential to sorting out the various new treatment options.

 

“It’s not the end of the story for me: It’s the beginning of a completely new era of treatment of metastatic melanoma, and I strongly believe in combinations. Therefore, it’s very much appreciated if patients are brought to clinical trials,” he said. “But they need to receive in these clinical trials standard of care. And for BRAF-mutated patients, standard of care is no longer [dacarbazine]; it’s no longer placebo. It needs to be a BRAF inhibitor.���

 

Dr. Adams, the moderator, commented, “This phase III study of dabrafenib confirms that BRAF targeting in mutant melanoma is highly effective as seen by tumor shrinkage in about half of the patients, similar to the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]–approved drug vemurafenib and potentially with less severe skin side effects. We are eagerly awaiting results of combinatorial therapy to see if combinations can actually push out the onset of resistance.”

 

Dr. Robert disclosed that she is a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. Hauschild disclosed that he is a consultant to and receives honoraria and research funding from GlaxoSmithKline. Both trials were funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Adams disclosed that she is a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline.

版权声明:
本网站所有注明“来源:梅斯医学”或“来源:MedSci原创”的文字、图片和音视频资料,版权均属于梅斯医学所有。非经授权,任何媒体、网站或个人不得转载,授权转载时须注明“来源:梅斯医学”。其它来源的文章系转载文章,本网所有转载文章系出于传递更多信息之目的,转载内容不代表本站立场。不希望被转载的媒体或个人可与我们联系,我们将立即进行删除处理。
在此留言
评论区 (null)
#插入话题

相关资讯

ASCO:T-DM1治疗进展期HER2阳性乳腺癌优于卡培他滨+拉帕替尼

芝加哥(EGMN)——在美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)2012年会上报告的EMILIAIII期随机试验表明,抗体-药物共轭新药T-DM1用于进展期HER2阳性乳腺癌比标准治疗更有效,毒性也更小。   在这项试验中,研究者总共招募了991例局部进展或转移性HER2阳性乳腺癌患者,并且所有患者之前都曾接受紫杉烷和曲妥珠单抗治疗。这些患者被平均分组,接受静脉输注T-DM1(又名曲妥珠单抗em

疾病进展后使用贝伐珠单抗可延长转移性结直肠癌患者生存

芝加哥(EGMN)——美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)年会上报告的一项研究显示,对于进展期结直肠癌(CRC)患者,在二线化疗基础上追加贝伐珠单抗可延长无进展生存期和总生存期。   德国Eppendorf大学医院Hubertus Wald肿瘤中心主任Dirk Arnold博士报告,在这项III期随机试验中,820例无法切除的转移性CRC患者在接受伊立替康或奥沙利铂为基础的一线化疗后,根据医

青年白血病患者采用儿童方案治疗效果劣于儿童

芝加哥(EGMN)——美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)年会报告的一项临床试验表明,青少年和年轻成人(AYA)白血病患者接受儿童方案治疗,可改善5年无事件生存率,但疗效仍不及儿童患者。   在这项由儿童肿瘤协作组完成的随机III期试验中,研究者入组2,571例最大年龄为30岁的AYA患者,以比较高危B-前体细胞急性淋巴细胞性白血病(ALL)治疗方案效果。其中,501例患者年龄≥16岁。既往

加用贝伐珠单抗可使难治性卵巢癌无进展生存期延长1倍

芝加哥(EGMN)——美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)年会上公布的AURELIA研究结果显示,化疗联合抗血管生成药贝伐珠单抗的方案可为那些对铂类药物产生耐药的卵巢癌女性患者带来新的希望。   这项随机III期研究由巴黎主宫医院的Eric Pujade-Lauraine博士及其同事进行,研究对象是铂类药物末次给药后6个月内出现进展的上皮性卵巢癌、输卵管癌或原发性腹膜癌女性患者(n=361)

苯达莫司汀-利妥昔单抗可使惰性淋巴瘤无进展生存期翻番

芝加哥(EGMN)——根据StiL NHL1研究的最新结果,在惰性和套细胞淋巴瘤的治疗上,苯达莫司汀-利妥昔单抗继续保持对CHOP-利妥昔单抗的优势。德国Giessen 大学医院的Mathias J. Rummel博士在美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)年会期间的新闻发布会上指出,鉴于苯达莫司汀-利妥昔单抗方案可使无进展生存期增加1倍且相关毒性发生率显著降低,应考虑将该方案作为这类患者的首选一线治疗。

NEJM: PD-1单抗对多种癌症有良好疗效

芝加哥(EGMN)——在经过一系列强化预处理的实体肿瘤患者中,近1/4对名为BMS-936558的新型免疫疗法有应答,部分患者的应答持续超过1年。第一作者、约翰霍普金斯大学黑色素瘤项目主任Suzanne Topalian博士在美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)年会的新闻发布会上介绍:“该疗法的一个显著特点是,它对其他治疗无效的患者仍可诱导出非常持久的应答。   BMS-936558是一种单