The BRIM-3 trial showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma.,We present final OS data from BRIM-3.,Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks).,OS and PFS were co-primary end points.,OS was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with and without censoring of data for dacarbazine patients who crossed over to vemurafenib.,Between 4 January 2010 and 16 December 2010, a total of 675 patients were randomized to vemurafenib (n = 337) or dacarbazine (n = 338, of whom 84 crossed over to vemurafenib).,At the time of database lock (14 August 2015), median OS, censored at crossover, was significantly longer for vemurafenib than for dacarbazine {13.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.0-15.4] versus 9.7 months [95% CI 7.9-12.8; hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]; P = 0.03}, as was median OS without censoring at crossover [13.6 months (95% CI 12.0-15.4) versus 10.3 months (95% CI 9.1-12.8); HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.96); P = 0.01].,Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS rates for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine were 56% versus 46%, 30% versus 24%, 21% versus 19% and 17% versus 16% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years, respectively.,Overall, 173 of the 338 patients (51%) in the dacarbazine arm and 175 of the 337 (52%) of those in the vemurafenib arm received subsequent anticancer therapies, most commonly ipilimumab.,Safety data were consistent with the primary analysis.,Vemurafenib continues to be associated with improved median OS in the BRIM-3 trial after extended follow-up.,OS curves converged after ≈3 years, likely as a result of crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib and receipt of subsequent anticancer therapies.,NCT01006980.
Uveal melanoma (UM), a rare cancer of the eye, is distinct from cutaneous melanoma by its etiology, the mutation frequency and profile, and its clinical behavior including resistance to targeted therapy and immune checkpoint blockers.,Primary disease is efficiently controlled by surgery or radiation therapy, but about half of UMs develop distant metastasis mostly to the liver.,Survival of patients with metastasis is below 1 year and has not improved in decades.,Recent years have brought a deep understanding of UM biology characterized by initiating mutations in the G proteins GNAQ and GNA11.,Cytogenetic alterations, in particular monosomy of chromosome 3 and amplification of the long arm of chromosome 8, and mutation of the BRCA1-associated protein 1, BAP1, a tumor suppressor gene, or the splicing factor SF3B1 determine UM metastasis.,Cytogenetic and molecular profiling allow for a very precise prognostication that is still not matched by efficacious adjuvant therapies.,G protein signaling has been shown to activate the YAP/TAZ pathway independent of HIPPO, and conventional signaling via the mitogen-activated kinase pathway probably also contributes to UM development and progression.,Several lines of evidence indicate that inflammation and macrophages play a pro-tumor role in UM and in its hepatic metastases.,UM cells benefit from the immune privilege in the eye and may adopt several mechanisms involved in this privilege for tumor escape that act even after leaving the niche.,Here, we review the current knowledge of the biology of UM and discuss recent approaches to UM treatment.