Patients with metastatic melanoma receiving vemurafenib following disease progression showed similar or better overall response to patients without progressive disease, according to findings from an analysis reported at the 11th International Congress of the Society for Melanoma Research on November 15, 2014.
Patients with metastatic melanoma receiving vemurafenib following disease progression showed similar or better overall response to patients without progressive disease, according to findings from an analysis reported at the 11th International Congress of the Society for Melanoma Research on November 15, 2014.
Vemurafenib is an inhibitor of BRAF enzyme activity that is used in patients with advanced melanoma who cannot be surgically treated; however benefit from treatment in patients experiencing disease progression remains controversial.
“Although most patients treated with vemurafenib experience tumor regression during treatment, about 50% of responding patients experience disease progression within 6 to 7 months,” said Christian U. Blank MD, PhD, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Anthoni van Leeuwenhook Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
He explained further, “Previously reported subgroup analyses of patients treated with vemurafenib have suggested an overall survival benefit for patients who continue to receive BRAF inhibition following progression, but this is contrasted by preclinical models showing that vemurafenib resistant cell lines are dependent on vemurafenib for growth and that withdrawal can induce tumor regression.”
This analysis included data from 3222 patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma who had participated in a global safety study. Both previously-treated and treatment-naïve patients were included and all received oral vemurafenib at 960 mg, twice a day.
At the 3rd interim analysis, 2409 (74.8%) patients demonstrated a best overall response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD). From this cohort, a subgroup of 217 (9.0%) patients was identified that had received vemurafenib for 4 or more weeks following disease progression. The analysis presented here compared the clinical outcome of patients in this subgroup to that of the overall cohort of responders.
No statistically significant differences were seen between the groups regarding patient characteristics, including elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), ECOG performance status, or the baseline melanoma disease stage.
A comparison of best observed response with vemurafenib between the groups showed that 1.4%, 37.3% %, and 61.3% of patients treated following progression achieved CR, PR, and SD versus 3.7%, 34.4%, and 61.9% of patients in the overall population, respectively.
Patients receiving vemurafenib after disease progression achieved median progression-free survival of 6.3 months (95% CI 5.6, 6.7) compared with 6.4 months (95% CI 6.2, 6.5) for the overall population. The respective median overall survival was 15.2 months (95% CI 14.1, 17.9) versus 14.2 months (95% CI 13.2, 15.2) for patients with progressive disease and the overall population.
Median response duration was shorter in patients treated following progress at 5.6 months compared to 7.3 months in patients overall.
Vemurafenib was well-tolerated by patients treated beyond progression; Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred slightly more frequently in patients treated beyond progression, with 116 (53%) patients in this cohort reporting grade 3/4 AEs compared to 1480 (46%) patients in the overall population. The most frequently reported grade 3/4 AEs were squamous cell cancer, rash, and liver function abnormalities.
“The slightly higher rate of AEs in patients who continued treatment after progression could possibly be due to the longer exposure to vemurafenib,” explained Dr Blank.
Dr Blank summarized, “ Efficacy outcomes were similar in the overall population and in patients receiving vemurafenib after disease progression, who seemed to have slightly longer median overall survival.”
Funding from F. Hoffman-La Roche was reported.
Delayed Diagnoses, Oxygen Therapy Use Linked to Worse Outcomes in Patients With Fibrotic ILD
October 21st 2024Posters presented at the CHEST 2024 annual meeting revealed that delays in diagnosing fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) can negatively impact overall survival, while supplemental oxygen therapy may exacerbate clinical burdens through increased rates of acute exacerbations and hospitalizations.
Read More
Examining Low-Value Cancer Care Trends Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
April 25th 2024On this episode of Managed Care Cast, we're talking with the authors of a study published in the April 2024 issue of The American Journal of Managed Care® about their findings on the rates of low-value cancer care services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Listen
Oncology Onward: A Conversation With Penn Medicine's Dr Justin Bekelman
December 19th 2023Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, sat with our hosts Emeline Aviki, MD, MBA, and Stephen Schleicher, MD, MBA, for our final episode of 2023 to discuss the importance of collaboration between academic medicine and community oncology and testing innovative cancer care delivery in these settings.
Listen
Ways Providers, Payers Can Ensure Biomarker Testing Is Done in Cancer Care
October 18th 2024There is a role for both payers and providers to make small changes that would increase the use of biomarker testing to ensure patients are receiving the appropriate treatment, said Susan Wescott, RPh, MBA, senior director of managed care pharmacy, Mayo Clinic.
Read More
Early Intervention, Targeted Strategies Needed to Improve Disparities, Survival in Patients With IPF
October 17th 2024Two posters presented at the CHEST 2024 annual meeting highlighted the importance of addressing socioeconomic disparities and identifying clinical predictors to improve outcomes and survival rates among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).
Read More