Thanks, Edster!! He is the Wizard.
For of those who are simply interested in these topics or are feeling super Melano-nerdy!!! – Here are some posts I have made related to the studies Weber addressed, if you like ~
Weber says: The CheckMate 238 adjuvant trial[1] was a large randomized, blinded trial with an active control arm. Patients with resected stage IIIB/C or IV melanoma were randomly allocated to receive either adjuvant nivolumab or adjuvant ipilimumab for 1 year. This was a large trial that included 906 patients and an even 1:1 randomization. With now more than 24 months of follow-up, the updated data suggest that for the primary endpoint of recurrence-free survival, there continues to be a clear benefit for nivolumab compared with ipilimumab. The rate of relapse-free survival at 24 months is 63% for patients on nivolumab versus 50% for those on ipilimumab, a clear benefit. And continues…whether PD-L1 positive or negative, BRAF mutated, stage III or stage IV,all of the benefit continues to be maintained…
My post: http://chaoticallypreciselifeloveandmelanoma.blogspot.com/2018/06/asco-2018-nivo-vs-ipi-as-adjuvant-in.html
Weber says: The follow-up on the KEYNOTE-006 trial[3] (pembrolizumab vs ipilimumab) includes some very nice data looking at the more than 100 patients (19% of the total) who completed 2 years of treatment on schedule. Currently we have about 2 years of follow-up after finishing treatment in that population, and it suggests that 82%-86% of those patients will actually stay in remission 2 years from finishing 2 years of treatment [with pembrolizumab]—that is, 4 years from initiation of therapy. No median duration of response has been reached in the pembrolizumab group. These are quite impressive data. He also notes: Of eight patients who relapsed among the group that finished 2 years of treatment successfully, either in complete remission, partial remission, or even stable, two of those eight went back into remission [after a second course of treatment], including one partial and one complete response; five were stable and only one subsequently progressed. These are small numbers, but they suggest that perhaps you could re-treat patients who finished 2 years [of pembrolizumab], go off, and then relapse at some point in the future—that it may be possible to re-treat those patients with the same drug and achieve some benefit.
My post on Keynote 006 from 2016: http://chaoticallypreciselifeloveandmelanoma.blogspot.com/2016/05/asco-2016let-games-begin-pembro-alone.html
My post on Keynote 006 from 2017: http://chaoticallypreciselifeloveandmelanoma.blogspot.com/2017/06/asco-2017-ipi-plus-pembro-ipi-after.html
And this post includes longterm outcomes from the 006 trial as of 2017: http://chaoticallypreciselifeloveandmelanoma.blogspot.com/2017/06/asco-2017-outcomes-after-stopping.html
Re the Columbus trial, Weber says: The COLUMBUS trial included a total of 577, and 192 patients received the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib; nonetheless, you can't argue with a 33.6-month median survival, a 14.9-month median progression-free survival, and an excellent response rate, which matches what we see with other BRAF/MEK combinations.
2 posts on same, one from 2017 and one from 2017: http://chaoticallypreciselifeloveandmelanoma.blogspot.com/search?q=columbus
Thanks for sharing, Ed!! Always good to hear the take home points from the horse's mouth!! c
.
