Reintroduction of dabrafenib after previous vemurafenib-induced DRESS: Not always safe!

Oral Adverse Events Associated with BRAF and MEK Inhibitors in Melanoma Treatment: A Narrative Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Melanoma cancer represents the most lethal type of skin cancer originating from the malignant transformation of melanocyte cells. Almost 50% of melanomas show the activation of BRAF mutations. The identification and characterization of BRAF mutations led to the development of specific drugs that radically changed the therapeutic approach to melanoma.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of the literature according to a written protocol before conducting the study. This article is based on previously conducted studies. We identified articles by searching electronic databases (Medline, Google Scholar and PubMed). We used a combination of "melanoma", "Braf-Mek inhibitors", " targeted therapy" and "oral side effects".

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were reported in this article showing the relationship between the use of targeted therapy in melanoma cancer and the development of oral side effects, such as mucositis, hyperkeratosis and cellular proliferation.

CONCLUSION

Targeted therapy plays an important role in the treatment of melanoma cancer, showing a notable increase in response rate, prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in BRAF-mutated melanoma patients. Oral side effects represent a common finding over the course of treatment. However, these adverse effects can be easily managed in a multidisciplinary approach involving collaboration between medical oncologists and dental doctors.

Clinical features of drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome to BRAF inhibitors with and without previous immune checkpoint inhibition: a review

PURPOSE

Cutaneous reactions to BRAF inhibitors are common, but severe reactions resembling or consistent with drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS)/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) are relatively rare. Several reports suggest that cutaneous reactions including DRESS/DIHS to BRAF inhibitors are more frequent and severe in the setting of previous immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI).

METHODS

To characterize existing literature on these reports, we queried the PubMed/MEDLINE database for cases of DIHS/DRESS to BRAF inhibitors.

RESULTS

We identified 23 cases of DIHS to BRAF inhibitors following checkpoint inhibition and 14 cases without prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy. In both cohorts, DIHS occurred relatively early, with median time to onset from drug exposure of 8-10 days. Patients who received prior ICI were less likely to have peripheral eosinophilia (26% vs 71%), atypical lymphocytes (9% vs 50%), renal involvement (61% vs 79%), hepatic involvement (52% vs 86%), and lymphadenopathy (9% vs 43%) compared to patients who did not receive prior ICI. Thrombocytopenia was more common with prior ICI (17% vs 7%). Only patients who received prior ICI experienced hypotension (26%) during the course of their DIHS. All cases of BRAF-induced DIHS generally improved on systemic steroids/supportive care, and no cases of death were identified.

CONCLUSION

Dermatologists should consider a diagnosis of DIHS following BRAF inhibitor initiation, particularly in the setting of past checkpoint inhibition, with atypical features including relatively rapid onset and steroid responsiveness, lack of peripheral eosinophilia, lymphocytosis, or lymphadenopathy, and increased risk of thrombocytopenia and hypotension.