COLUMBUS 5-Year Update: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial of Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib Versus Vemurafenib or Encorafenib in Patients With BRAF V600-Mutant Melanoma

YBX1 as a prognostic biomarker and potential therapeutic target in hepatocellular carcinoma: A comprehensive investigation through bioinformatics analysis and in vitro study

BACKGROUNDS

Y-box binding protein 1 (YBX1) is a DNA/RNA binding protein known to contribute to the progression of various malignancies, however, a comprehensive pan-cancer analysis to investigate YBX1 across a broad spectrum of cancer types has not yet been conducted.

METHODS

We utilized the TIMER database for a comprehensive pan-cancer analysis and assessed YBX-1 expression via the TCGA and GEO databases. The relationship between YBX-1 expression and tumor-infiltrating cells was examined using TIMER and the R programming language. To evaluate the prognostic value of YBX1, we performed Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression analyses. Through LinkedOmics, we identified genes significantly correlated with YBX-1. The WEB-based Gene SeT AnaLysis Toolkit was used for KEGG pathway enrichment analysis. Additionally, using shRNA-mediated knockdown, we explored the potential role of YBX1 in tumor cell biology.

RESULTS

Our study identifies pronounced overexpression of YBX-1 across multiple cancer types, correlating with adverse outcomes, notably in liver hepatocellular carcinoma (LIHC). A distinct association between elevated YBX-1 expression and heightened immune cell infiltration suggests YBX-1's potential role in reshaping the tumor microenvironment. Intriguingly, our KEGG pathway analysis indicated a tight nexus between YBX-1 expression and lipid metabolism. Moreover, the suppression of YBX-1 via shRNA revealed diminished cellular proliferation and marked reductions in crucial molecules steering the fatty acid synthesis pathway, implicating YBX-1's potential regulatory role in lipid metabolism within LIHC.

CONCLUSIONS

YBX-1 serves as a favorable prognostic indicator in various cancers, particularly in liver hepatocellular carcinoma. Targeting YBX1 in HCC offers potential therapeutic strategies. This work paves the way for fresh insights into targeted therapeutic approaches for cancers, especially benefiting liver hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

Curing Stage IV Melanoma: Where Have We Been and Where Are We?

Little more than 10 years ago, metastatic melanoma was considered to have one of the poorest cancer outcomes, associated with a median overall survival of 6-8 months. Cytotoxic chemotherapy offered modest response rates of 20%-30%, but no clear survival benefit. Patients were routinely enrolled in clinical trials as their first-line therapy in the search for effective novel therapeutics. Remarkable developments in molecular biology, cancer genomics, immunology, and drug discovery have dominated the early part of the 21st century, and nowhere have the benefits been better realized than in the transformation of outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma: since 2011, 14 new agents have been approved that significantly increase survival, with long-term remissions and, possibly now, potential for cure. Even so, there is still much work to be done, given that most treated patients still die of their disease. Although most survival gains have so far been realized for cutaneous melanoma, improving treatment options for those 10% of patients with rarer, noncutaneous melanomas is a high priority. Key novel therapeutic approaches aimed at improving outcomes with potential for curing patients with melanoma are considered.

COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff).

METHODS

577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed.

RESULTS

Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

The evolving landscape of tissue-agnostic therapies in precision oncology

Tumor-agnostic therapies represent a paradigm shift in oncology by altering the traditional means of characterizing tumors based on their origin or location. Instead, they zero in on specific genetic anomalies responsible for fueling malignant growth. The watershed moment for tumor-agnostic therapies arrived in 2017, with the US Food and Drug Administration's historic approval of pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor. This milestone marked the marriage of genomics and immunology fields, as an immunotherapeutic agent gained approval based on genomic biomarkers, specifically, microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). Subsequently, the approval of NTRK inhibitors, designed to combat NTRK gene fusions prevalent in various tumor types, including pediatric cancers and adult solid tumors, further underscored the potential of tumor-agnostic therapies. The US Food and Drug Administration approvals of targeted therapies (BRAF V600E, RET fusion), immunotherapies (tumor mutational burden ≥10 mutations per megabase, dMMR) and an antibody-drug conjugate (Her2-positive-immunohistochemistry 3+ expression) with pan-cancer efficacy have continued, offering newfound hope to patients grappling with advanced solid tumors that harbor particular biomarkers. In this comprehensive review, the authors delve into the expansive landscape of tissue-agnostic targets and drugs, shedding light on the rationale underpinning this approach, the hurdles it faces, presently approved therapies, voices from the patient advocacy perspective, and the tantalizing prospects on the horizon. This is a welcome advance in oncology that transcends the boundaries of histology and location to provide personalized options.

BRAFV600E Metastatic Melanoma Journey: A Perspective from a Patient and his Oncologist

BACKGROUND

This article is co-authored by a patient with BRAFV600E metastatic melanoma and his treating oncologist.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The patient describes how he coped with his diagnosis and treatment. He details the pathway of his melanoma treatment, which has spanned over 10 years, including surgical interventions, medical treatment, and participation in clinical trials. He relates his experience of living with the disease-and the adverse effects of treatment-in the long term. The clinical perspective of his treating oncologist reviews the diagnostic process and explains how the therapeutic options were selected for and with the patient. The oncologist also addresses the integration of the patient into clinical trials involving programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Challenges related to the adverse effects that occurred and the personalised treatment of the patient are also discussed. Finally, the article evaluates current advances in treatment and future therapeutic approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

This case highlights the challenges of identifying which therapeutic options are most appropriate for individual patients with BRAFV600E metastatic melanoma.

Pharmacological inhibition of PDGF-C/neuropilin-1 interaction: A novel strategy to reduce melanoma metastatic potential

Activation of neuropilin-1 (NRP-1) by platelet derived growth factor (PDGF)-C sustains melanoma invasiveness. Therefore, in the search of novel agents capable of reducing melanoma spreading, PDGF-C/NRP-1 interaction was investigated as a potential druggable target. Since the PDGF-C region involved in NRP-1 binding is not yet known, based on the sequence and structural homology between PDGF-C and vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), we hypothesized that the NRP-1 b1 domain region involved in the interaction with VEGF-A might also be required for PDGF-C binding. Hence, this region was selected from the protein crystal structure and used as target in the molecular docking procedure. In the following virtual screening, compounds from a DrugBank database were used as query ligands to identify agents potentially capable of disrupting NRP-1/PDGF-C interaction. Among the top 45 candidates with the highest affinity, five drugs were selected based on the safety profile, lack of hormonal effects, and current availability in the market: the antipsychotic pimozide, antidiabetic gliclazide, antiallergic cromolyn sodium, anticancer tyrosine kinase inhibitor entrectinib, and antihistamine azelastine. Analysis of drug influence on PDGF-C in vitro binding to NRP-1 and PDGF-C induced migration of human melanoma cells expressing NRP-1, indicated gliclazide and entrectinib as the most specific agents that were active at clinically achievable and non-toxic concentrations. Both drugs also reverted PDGF-C ability to stimulate extracellular matrix invasion by melanoma cells resistant to BRAF inhibitors. The inhibitory effect on tumor cell motility involved a decrease of p130Cas phosphorylation, a signal transduction pathway activated by PDGF-C-mediated stimulation of NRP-1.

A Practical Review of Encorafenib and Binimetinib Therapy Management in Patients with BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

According to current guidelines, targeted therapy with a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the preferred first-line treatment for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 PHAROS trial (NCT03915951), the combination of encorafenib, a potent BRAF inhibitor, and binimetinib, a potent MEK inhibitor, demonstrated durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in this patient population. On the basis of the results of this study, the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on October 11, 2023, for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib from the PHAROS study. In addition, we discuss strategies to manage adverse reactions with this combination therapy with the intent of minimizing unnecessary treatment discontinuations in these patients.

Inactivation of kindlin-3 increases human melanoma aggressiveness through the collagen-activated tyrosine kinase receptor DDR1

The role of the focal adhesion protein kindlin-3 as a tumor suppressor and its interaction mechanisms with extracellular matrix constitute a major field of investigation to better decipher tumor progression. Besides the well-described role of kindlin-3 in integrin activation, evidence regarding modulatory functions between melanoma cells and tumor microenvironment are lacking and data are needed to understand mechanisms driven by kindlin-3 inactivation. Here, we show that kindlin-3 inactivation through knockdown or somatic mutations increases BRAFV600mut melanoma cells oncogenic properties via collagen-related signaling by decreasing cell adhesion and enhancing proliferation and migration in vitro, and by promoting tumor growth in mice. Mechanistic analysis reveals that kindlin-3 interacts with the collagen-activated tyrosine kinase receptor DDR1 (Discoidin domain receptor 1) modulating its expression and its interaction with β1-integrin. Kindlin-3 knockdown or mutational inactivation disrupt DDR1/β1-integrin complex in vitro and in vivo and its loss improves the anti-proliferative effect of DDR1 inhibition. In agreement, kindlin-3 downregulation is associated with DDR1 over-expression in situ and linked to worse melanoma prognosis. Our study reveals a unique mechanism of action of kindlin-3 in the regulation of tumorigenesis mediated by the collagen-activated tyrosine kinase receptor DDR1 thus paving the way for innovative therapeutic targeting approaches in melanoma.

Targeting RAF dimers in RAS mutant tumors: From biology to clinic

RAS mutations occur in approximately 30% of tumors worldwide and have a poor prognosis due to limited therapies. Covalent targeting of KRAS G12C has achieved significant success in recent years, but there is still a lack of efficient therapeutic approaches for tumors with non-G12C KRAS mutations. A highly promising approach is to target the MAPK pathway downstream of RAS, with a particular focus on RAF kinases. First-generation RAF inhibitors have been authorized to treat BRAF mutant tumors for over a decade. However, their use in RAS-mutated tumors is not recommended due to the paradoxical ERK activation mainly caused by RAF dimerization. To address the issue of RAF dimerization, type II RAF inhibitors have emerged as leading candidates. Recent clinical studies have shown the initial effectiveness of these agents against RAS mutant tumors. Promisingly, type II RAF inhibitors in combination with MEK or ERK inhibitors have demonstrated impressive efficacy in RAS mutant tumors. This review aims to clarify the importance of RAF dimerization in cellular signaling and resistance to treatment in tumors with RAS mutations, as well as recent progress in therapeutic approaches to address the problem of RAF dimerization in RAS mutant tumors.

Malignant features of minipig melanomas prior to spontaneous regression

In MeLiM minipigs, melanomas develop around birth, can metastasize, and have histopathologic characteristics similar to humans. Interestingly, MeLiM melanomas eventually regress. This favorable outcome raises the question of their malignancy, which we investigated. We clinically followed tens of tumors from onset to first signs of regression. Transcriptome analysis revealed an enrichment of all cancer hallmarks in melanomas, although no activating or suppressing somatic mutation were found in common driver genes. Analysis of tumor cell genomes revealed high mutation rates without UV signature. Canonical proliferative, survival and angiogenic pathways were detected in MeLiM tumor cells all along progression stages. Functionally, we show that MeLiM melanoma cells are capable to grow in immunocompromised mice, with serial passages and for a longer time than in MeLiM pigs. Pigs set in place an immune response during progression with dense infiltration by myeloid cells while melanoma cells are deficient in B2M expression. To conclude, our data on MeLiM melanomas reveal several malignancy characteristics. The combination of these features with the successful spontaneous regression of these tumors make it an outstanding model to study an efficient anti-tumor immune response.

Current State of Melanoma Therapy and Next Steps: Battling Therapeutic Resistance

Melanoma is the most aggressive and deadly form of skin cancer due to its high propensity to metastasize to distant organs. Significant progress has been made in the last few decades in melanoma therapeutics, most notably in targeted therapy and immunotherapy. These approaches have greatly improved treatment response outcomes; however, they remain limited in their abilities to hinder disease progression due, in part, to the onset of acquired resistance. In parallel, intrinsic resistance to therapy remains an issue to be resolved. In this review, we summarize currently available therapeutic options for melanoma treatment and focus on possible mechanisms that drive therapeutic resistance. A better understanding of therapy resistance will provide improved rational strategies to overcome these obstacles.

BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC: disease overview and treatment landscape

In this review, we cover the current understanding of BRAF mutations and associated clinical characteristics in patients with metastatic NSCLC, approved and emerging treatment options, BRAF sequencing approaches, and unmet needs. The BRAFV600E mutation confers constitutive activity of the MAPK pathway, leading to enhanced growth, proliferation, and survival of tumor cells. Testing for BRAF mutations enables patients to be treated with therapies that directly target BRAFV600E and the MAPK pathway, but BRAF testing lags behind other oncogene testing in metastatic NSCLC. Additional therapies targeting BRAFV600E mutations provide options for patients with metastatic NSCLC. Emerging therapies and combinations under investigation could potentially overcome issues of resistance and target non-V600E mutations. Therefore, because targeted therapies with enhanced efficacy are on the horizon, being able to identify BRAF mutations in metastatic NSCLC may become even more important.

The treatment of advanced melanoma: Current approaches and new challenges

In recent years, advances in melanoma treatment have renewed patient hope. This comprehensive review emphasizes the evolving treatment landscape, particularly highlighting first-line strategies and the interplay between immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab has achieved the best median overall survival, exceeding 70 months. However, the introduction of new ICIs, like relatlimab, has added complexity to first-line therapy decisions. Our aim is to guide clinicians in making personalized treatment decisions. Various features, including brain metastases, PD-L1 expression, BRAF mutation, performance status, and prior adjuvant therapy, significantly impact the direction of advanced melanoma treatment. We also provide the latest insights into the treatment of rare melanoma subtypes, such as uveal melanoma, where tebentafusp has shown promising improvements in overall survival for metastatic uveal melanoma patients. This review provides invaluable insights for clinicians, enabling informed treatment choices and deepening our understanding of the multifaceted challenges associated with advanced melanoma management.

Clinical Evaluation of the Effect of Encorafenib on Bupropion, Rosuvastatin, and Coproporphyrin I and Considerations for Statin Coadministration

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Encorafenib is a kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma or metastatic colorectal cancer, respectively, with selected BRAF V600 mutations. A clinical drug-drug interaction (DDI) study was designed to evaluate the effect of encorafenib on rosuvastatin, a sensitive substrate of OATP1B1/3 and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), and bupropion, a sensitive CYP2B6 substrate. Coproporphyrin I (CP-I), an endogenous substrate for OATP1B1, was measured in a separate study to deconvolute the mechanism of transporter DDI.

METHODS

DDI study participants received a single oral dose of rosuvastatin (10 mg) and bupropion (75 mg) on days - 7, 1, and 14 and continuous doses of encorafenib (450 mg QD) and binimetinib (45 mg BID) starting on day 1. The CP-I data were collected from participants in a phase 3 study who received encorafenib (300 mg QD) and cetuximab (400 mg/m2 initial dose, then 250 mg/m2 QW). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis was performed using noncompartmental and compartmental methods.

RESULTS

Bupropion exposure was not increased, whereas rosuvastatin Cmax and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) increased approximately 2.7 and 1.6-fold, respectively, following repeated doses of encorafenib and binimetinib. Increase in CP-I was minimal, suggesting that the primary effect of encorafenib on rosuvastatin is through BCRP. Categorization of statins on the basis of their metabolic and transporter profile suggests pravastatin would have the least potential for interaction when coadministered with encorafenib.

CONCLUSION

The results from these clinical studies suggest that encorafenib does not cause clinically relevant CYP2B6 induction or inhibition but is an inhibitor of BCRP and may also inhibit OATP1B1/3 to a lesser extent. Based on these results, it may be necessary to consider switching statins or reducing statin dosage accordingly for coadministration with encorafenib.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03864042, registered 6 March 2019.

Review of recent advances in managing periocular skin malignancies

Management of cutaneous malignancies can be particularly challenging when they are located in the periocular region. The standard of care for localized disease is complete surgical excision, but this may not be possible without significant disruption to visual structures and facial appearance. Definitive radiation may be an option for some patients who cannot or do not wish to undergo surgery. Advances in systemic treatment options for locally advanced and metastatic skin cancers in the past 10 years have prompted investigation into neoadjuvant treatment of periocular cancers. The use of chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and targeted therapies have all been reported with varying degrees of success. For many patients, targeted therapies or immune checkpoint inhibitors should be considered depending on the cancer type, symptoms, and goals with the input of a multidisciplinary cancer care team. In this article, we systematically review the latest updates in surgical, radiotherapeutic, and medical management of periocular malignancies.

Updates on eyelid cancers

In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the five most common malignant eyelid tumors with current treatment recommendations based on international guidelines. Particular attention is paid to the clinicopathological correlation and the update with regard to adequate treatment. Newer systemic therapies enrich the existing treatment options, of which complete tumor excision remains the most important therapeutic measure.

Optimal strategy in managing advanced melanoma

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination therapy with BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors has dramatically improved the prognosis of advanced melanoma. However, since acral melanoma and mucosal melanoma, which are rare in Western countries but are major subtypes of melanoma in East Asia, including Japan, have a low frequency of BRAF mutations, there are currently no treatment options other than immune checkpoint inhibitors in most such cases. Furthermore, owing to a lower tumor mutation burden, immune checkpoint inhibitors are less effective in acral and mucosal melanoma than in cutaneous melanoma. The aim of this review was to summarize the current status and future prospects for the treatment of advanced melanoma, comparing cutaneous melanoma, acral melanoma, and mucosal melanoma.

Long-term survival with systemic therapy in the last decade: Can melanoma be cured?

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to prolong survival of patients with several types of cancer, and the finding was first established in melanoma. Previously, systemic therapy for advanced melanoma aimed only at tumor control and palliation of symptoms. However, in recent years, some patients who received systemic therapy have achieved a complete response and survived without continuous treatment for more than several years. This review discusses the long-term survival rates achieved with currently used systemic therapies and their future perspectives. Long-term survival is currently most likely to be achieved with the use of the standard-dose combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, however, this regimen is associated with a high frequency of serious or persistent immune-related adverse events. Several new anti-PD-1-based combination therapies with a better risk-benefit balance are currently under development. Although the acral and mucosal subtypes tend to be less responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-PD-1-based combination therapy should continue to be investigated for these subtypes owing to its potential for better long-term survival. With the development of efficacious immunotherapy and targeted therapy, it is important to determine the optimal duration of systemic therapy to avoid unnecessary health and financial burdens as well as to improve efforts to support long-term cancer survivors. As the goal of systemic therapy shifts from tumor control to long-term survival, in future clinical trials, long-term clinical outcomes should be evaluated to assess the benefits of novel agents.

Multidisciplinary approach and treatment of acral and mucosal melanoma

Acral and mucosal melanoma are uncommon variants of melanoma. Acral melanoma has an age-adjusted incidence of approximately 1.8 cases per million individuals per year, accounting for about 2% to 3% of all melanoma cases. On the other hand, mucosal melanoma, with an incidence of 2.2 cases per million per year, makes up around 1.3% of all melanoma cases. These melanomas, in addition to being biologically and clinically distinct from cutaneous melanoma, share certain clinical and pathologic characteristics. These include a more aggressive nature and a less favorable prognosis. Furthermore, they exhibit a different mutational pattern, with KIT mutations being more prevalent in acral and mucosal melanomas. This divergence in mutational patterns may partially account for the relatively poorer prognosis, particularly to immune checkpoint inhibitors. This review explores various aspects of acral and mucosal melanoma, including their clinical presentation, pathologic features, mutational profiles, current therapeutic approaches, outcomes associated with systemic therapy, and potential strategies to address resistance to existing treatments.

Real-World Data on Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Management of Advanced Melanoma Patients: Single-Center Study of a Tertiary Cancer Center in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) have drastically changed the outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in both the resectable/adjuvant and unresectable/metastatic setting. In this follow-up analysis of real-world data, we aimed to investigate the clinical management and outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in a tertiary referral center in Switzerland approximately a decade after the introduction of ICIs and BRAF/MEKi into clinical use. Moreover, we aimed to compare the results with seminal phase 3 trials and to identify areas of high unmet clinical need.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study analyzed the melanoma registry of the University Hospital Zurich, a tertiary cancer center in Switzerland, and included patients treated in the resectable/adjuvant (n = 331) or unresectable/metastatic setting (n = 375).

RESULTS

In the resectable setting, adjuvant anti-PD1 or BRAF/MEKi showed a 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) of 53% and 67.6%, respectively, and the overall median RFS was 50 months. Patients with lymph node plus in-transit metastases or with distant metastases prior to commencing adjuvant treatment had a significantly reduced overall survival (OS). In 10.9% of patients, the treatment was stopped due to toxicity, which did not affect RFS/OS, unless the duration of the treatment was <3 months. Following a relapse of the disease during the first adjuvant treatment, the median progression-free survival (PFS2) was only 6.6 months; outcomes were particularly poor for relapses that were unresectable (median PFS2 3.9 months) or occurred within the first 2 months (median PFS2 2.7 months). A second adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable relapses still showed efficacy (median RFS2 43.7 months). Elevated LDH levels in patients with an unresectable relapse was correlated with a strong reduction in OS2 (HR 9.84, p = 0.018). In the unresectable setting, first-line anti-PD1, anti-CTLA4/PD1 combination, or BRAF/MEKi showed a 5-year OS of 46.5%, 52.4%, and 49.2%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, elevated LDH levels or the presence of brain metastases substantially shortened OS (HR > 1.78, p < 0.035). There was a non-significant trend for the improved survival of patients treated with anti-CTLA4/PD1 compared to anti-PD1 (HR 0.64, p = 0.15). After a progression on first-line therapy, the median OS2 was reduced to below two years. Elevated LDH (HR 4.65, p < 0.001) levels and widespread disease with at least three metastatic sites, particularly bone metastases (HR 2.62, p = 0.026), affected OS2.

CONCLUSION

Our study offers real-world insights into the clinical management, treatment patterns, and outcomes of advanced melanoma patients in both the adjuvant and unresectable setting. Early relapses in patients undergoing adjuvant treatment pose a particular challenge but these patients are generally excluded from first-line trials. The approved first-line metastatic treatments are highly effective in the real-world setting with 5-year OS rates around 50%. However, outcomes remain poor for patients with brain metastases or who fail first-line treatment.

Single-cell RNA sequencing in melanoma: what have we learned so far?

Over the past decade, there have been remarkable improvements in the treatment and survival rates of melanoma patients. Treatment resistance remains a persistent challenge, however, and is partly attributable to intratumoural heterogeneity. Melanoma cells can transition through a series of phenotypic and transcriptional cell states that vary in invasiveness and treatment responsiveness. The diverse stromal and immune contexture of the tumour microenvironment also contributes to intratumoural heterogeneity and disparities in treatment response in melanoma patients. Recent advances in single-cell sequencing technologies have enabled a more detailed understanding of melanoma heterogeneity and the underlying transcriptional programs that regulate melanoma cell diversity and behaviour. In this review, we examine the concept of intratumoural heterogeneity and the challenges it poses to achieving long-lasting treatment responses. We focus on the significance of next generation single-cell sequencing in advancing our understanding of melanoma diversity and the unique insights gained from single-cell studies.

Metabolic Profiling to Assess Response to Targeted and Immune Therapy in Melanoma

There is currently no consensus to determine which advanced melanoma patients will benefit from targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or a combination of both, highlighting the critical need to identify early-response biomarkers to advanced melanoma therapy. The goal of this review is to provide scientific rationale to highlight the potential role of metabolic imaging to assess response to targeted and/or immune therapy in melanoma cancer. For that purpose, a brief overview of current melanoma treatments is provided. Then, current knowledge with respect to melanoma metabolism is described with an emphasis on major crosstalks between melanoma cell metabolism and signaling pathways involved in BRAF-targeted therapy as well as in immune checkpoint inhibition therapies. Finally, preclinical and clinical studies using metabolic imaging and/or profiling to assess response to melanoma treatment are summarized with a particular focus on PET (Positron Emission Tomography) imaging and 13C-MRS (Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy) methods.

Molecular Targeting of the BRAF Proto-Oncogene/Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) Pathway across Cancers

The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is essential for cellular proliferation, growth, and survival. Constitutive activation of this pathway by BRAF mutations can cause downstream activation of kinases, leading to uncontrolled cellular growth and carcinogenesis. Therefore, inhibition of BRAF and the downstream substrate MEK has been shown to be effective in controlling tumor growth and proliferation. Over the last decade, several BRAF and MEK inhibitors have been investigated, ranging from primarily melanoma to various cancer types with BRAF alterations. This subsequently led to several Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for BRAF/MEK inhibitors for melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, anaplastic thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer, histiocytosis neoplasms, and finally, tumor-agnostic indications. Here, this comprehensive review will cover the developments of BRAF and MEK inhibitors from melanomas to tumor-agnostic indications, novel drugs, challenges, future directions, and the importance of those drugs in personalized medicine.

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.

BRAF-Mutated Melanoma Journey in Latin America: Expert Recommendations From Diagnosis to Treatment

OBJECTIVES

• Gather a panel of Latin American experts in testing and treating BRAF-melanoma. • Describe the current landscape of BRAF-mutated melanoma in Latin America. • Outline the current gaps in testing and recommend improvements for testing and treating BRAF-mutated melanoma in the region.

INTRODUCTION

Melanoma prevalence in Latin America is lower than in high- and middle-income countries. However, recent data indicate that the region's incidence and mortality are rising, with more stage IV patients being diagnosed. According to international clinical practice guidelines, conducting BRAF-mutation testing in patients with stage III or stage IV melanoma and high-risk resected disease is imperative. Still, BRAF-mutation testing and targeted therapies are inconsistently available in the region.

METHODS

Americas Health Foundation convened a meeting of Latin American experts on BRAF-mutated melanoma to develop guidelines and recommendations for diagnosis through treatment.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Some recommendations for improving diagnostics through improving access and reducing the cost of BRAF-mutation testing, enhancing efficiency in pathology laboratories, and creating country-specific local guidelines. The panel also gave treatment recommendations for neo-adjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and therapy for patients with metastatic disease in Latin America.

A randomised phase 2 study of intermittent versus continuous dosing of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma (INTERIM)

BACKGROUND

BRAF+MEK inhibitors extend life expectancy of patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma. Acquired resistance limits duration of benefit, but preclinical and case studies suggest intermittent dosing could overcome this limitation. INTERIM was a phase 2 trial evaluating an intermittent dosing regimen.

METHODS

Patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma due to start dabrafenib+trametinib were randomised to receive either continuous (CONT), or intermittent (INT; dabrafenib d1-21, trametinib d1-14 every 28 days) dosing. A composite primary endpoint included progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary endpoints included response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Mutant BRAFV600E ctDNA was measured by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), using mutant allele frequency of > 1 % as the detection threshold.

RESULTS

79 patients (39 INT, 40 CONT) were recruited; median age 67 years, 65 % AJCC (7th ed) stage IV M1c, 29 % had brain metastases. With 19 months median follow-up, INT was inferior in all efficacy measures: median PFS 8.5 vs 10.7mo (HR 1.39, 95 %CI 0.79-2.45, p = 0.255); median OS 18.1mo vs not reached (HR 1.69, 95 %CI 0.87-3.28, p = 0.121), ORR 57 % vs 77 %. INT patients experienced fewer treatment-related AEs (76 % vs 88 %), but more grade > 3 AEs (53 % vs 42 %). QoL favoured CONT. Detection of BRAFV600E ctDNA prior to treatment correlated with worse OS (HR 2.55, 95 %CI 1.25-5.21, p = 0.01) in both arms. A change to undetected during treatment did not significantly predict better OS.

CONCLUSION

INTERIM findings are consistent with other recent clinical trials reporting that intermittent dosing does not improve efficacy of BRAF+MEK inhibitors.

Impact of Physical Exercise on Melanoma Hallmarks: Current Status of Preclinical and Clinical Research

In recent years, accumulating evidence from preclinical and clinical studies consistently indicated that physical activity/exercise plays a crucial role in reducing the incidence and recurrence of various malignancies, by exerting a beneficial modulation of cancer hallmarks. Moreover, physical activity is suggested to attenuate certain adverse effects of anticancer therapy, including the reduction of cardiovascular toxicity and symptoms related to depression and anxiety, among others, while preserving muscular strength. In the case of melanoma, the relationship with physical activity has been critically debated. Historically, several cohort studies and meta-analyses reported a positive association between physical activity/exercise and melanoma risk. This association was primarily attributed to outdoor activities that may expose the skin to UV radiation, a well-known risk factor for melanocyte transformation. However, more recent evidence does not support such association and recognizes physical activity/exercise role in both melanoma prevention and progression. Nevertheless, sun protection is recommended during outdoor training to minimize UV radiation exposure. This narrative review summarizes preclinical and clinical data about physical activity effects on melanoma hallmarks. Specifically, experimental evidence is reported concerning (i) invasion and metastasis, (ii) reprogramming of energy metabolism, (iii) angiogenesis, (iv) resistance to cell death, (v) evasion from immune destruction, and (vi) tumor-promoting inflammation.

POLARIS: A phase 2 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib evaluating high-dose and standard-dose regimens in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with brain metastasis

Background

POLARIS (phase 2 [ph2]; NCT03911869) evaluated encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) in combination with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) in BRAF/MEK inhibitor-naïve patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with asymptomatic brain metastases.

Methods

The safety lead-in (SLI) assessed tolerability for high-dose encorafenib 300 mg twice daily (BID) plus binimetinib 45 mg BID. If the high dose was tolerable in ph2, patients would be randomized to receive high or standard dose (encorafenib 450 mg once daily [QD] plus binimetinib 45 mg BID). Otherwise, standard dose was evaluated as the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D). Patients who tolerated standard dosing during Cycle 1 could be dose escalated to encorafenib 600 mg QD plus binimetinib 45 mg BID in Cycle 2. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were examined.

Results

RP2D was standard encorafenib dosing, as >33% of evaluable SLI patients (3/9) had dose-limiting toxicities. Overall, of 13 safety-evaluable patients (10 SLI, 3 ph2), 9 had prior immunotherapy. There were 9 treatment-related adverse events in the SLI and 3 in ph2. Of the SLI efficacy-evaluable patients (n = 10), 1 achieved complete response and 5 achieved partial responses (PR); the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR) was 60% (95% CI: 26.2, 87.8). In ph2, 2 of 3 patients achieved PR (BMRR, 67% [95% CI: 9.4, 99.2]). Repeated encorafenib 300 mg BID dosing did not increase steady-state exposure compared with historical 450 mg QD data.

Conclusions

Despite small patient numbers due to early trial termination, BMRR appeared similar between the SLI and ph2, and the ph2 safety profile appeared consistent with previous reports of standard-dose encorafenib in combination with binimetinib.

Phase II Trial of Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in Relapsed/Refractory BRAF V600-Mutant Pediatric High-Grade Glioma

PURPOSE

BRAF V600 mutation is detected in 5%-10% of pediatric high-grade gliomas (pHGGs), and effective treatments are limited. In previous trials, dabrafenib as monotherapy or in combination with trametinib demonstrated activity in children and adults with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600-mutant HGG.

METHODS

This phase II study evaluated dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600-mutant pHGG. The primary objective was overall response rate (ORR) by independent review by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. Secondary objectives included ORR by investigator determination, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 41 pediatric patients with previously treated BRAF V600-mutant HGG were enrolled. At primary analysis, median follow-up was 25.1 months, and 51% of patients remained on treatment. Sixteen of 20 discontinuations were due to progressive disease in this relapsed/refractory pHGG population. Independently assessed ORR was 56% (95% CI, 40 to 72). Median DOR was 22.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not reached [NR]). Fourteen deaths were reported. Median OS was 32.8 months (95% CI, 19.2 months to NR). The most common all-cause adverse events (AEs) were pyrexia (51%), headache (34%), and dry skin (32%). Two patients (5%) had AEs (both rash) leading to discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

In relapsed/refractory BRAF V600-mutant pHGG, dabrafenib plus trametinib improved ORR versus previous trials of chemotherapy in molecularly unselected patients with pHGG and was associated with durable responses and encouraging survival. These findings suggest that dabrafenib plus trametinib is a promising targeted therapy option for children and adolescents with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600-mutant HGG.

Contribution of MEK Inhibition to BRAF/MEK Inhibitor Combination Treatment of BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Part 2 of the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III COLUMBUS Trial

PURPOSE

In COLUMBUS part 1, patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice a day (COMBO450), vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily (ENCO300). As previously reported, COMBO450 improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus vemurafenib (part 1 primary end point) and ENCO300 (part 1 key secondary end point; not statistically significant). Part 2, requested by the US Food and Drug Administration, evaluated the contribution of binimetinib by maintaining the same encorafenib dosage in the combination (encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [COMBO300]) and ENCO300 arms.

METHODS

In part 2, patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to COMBO300 or ENCO300. ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) data were combined, per protocol, for PFS analysis (key secondary end point) by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Other analyses included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and safety.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-eight patients received COMBO300, and 86 received ENCO300. Per protocol, ENCO300 arms (parts 1 and 2 combined) were also evaluated (n = 280). The median follow-up for ENCO300 was 40.8 months (part 1) and 57.1 months (part 2). The median PFS (95% CI) was 12.9 months (10.9 to 14.9) for COMBO300 versus 9.2  months (7.4 to 11.1) for ENCO300 (parts 1  and  2) and 7.4  months (5.6 to 9.2) for ENCO300 (part 2). The hazard ratio (95% CI) for COMBO300 was 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92; two-sided P = .003) versus ENCO300 (parts 1  and  2). The ORR by BIRC (95% CI) was 68% (62 to 74) and 51% (45 to 57) for COMBO300 and ENCO300 (parts 1  and  2), respectively. COMBO300 had greater relative dose intensity and fewer grade 3/4 adverse events than ENCO300.

CONCLUSION

COMBO300 improved PFS, ORR, and tolerability compared with ENCO300, confirming the contribution of binimetinib to efficacy and safety.

PAK1 and Therapy Resistance in Melanoma

Malignant melanoma claims more lives than any other skin malignancy. While primary melanomas are usually cured via surgical excision, the metastatic form of the disease portents a poor prognosis. Decades of intense research has yielded an extensive armamentarium of anti-melanoma therapies, ranging from genotoxic chemo- and radiotherapies to targeted interventions in specific signaling pathways and immune functions. Unfortunately, even the most up-to-date embodiments of these therapies are not curative for the majority of metastatic melanoma patients, and the need to improve their efficacy is widely recognized. Here, we review the reports that implicate p21-regulated kinase 1 (PAK1) and PAK1-related pathways in the response of melanoma to various therapeutic modalities. Ample data suggest that PAK1 may decrease cell sensitivity to programmed cell death, provide additional stimulation to growth-promoting molecular pathways, and contribute to the creation of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Accordingly, there is mounting evidence that the concomitant inhibition of PAK1 enhances the potency of various anti-melanoma regimens. Overall, the available information suggests that a safe and effective inhibition of PAK1-dependent molecular processes would enhance the potency of the currently available anti-melanoma treatments, although considerable challenges in implementing such strategies still exist.

The Impact of Drug-Drug Interactions on the Toxicity Profile of Combined Treatment with BRAF and MEK Inhibitors in Patients with BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma

BACKGROUND

BRAF and MEK inhibition is a successful strategy in managing BRAF-mutant melanoma, even if the treatment-related toxicity is substantial. We analyzed the role of drug-drug interactions (DDI) on the toxicity profile of anti-BRAF/anti-MEK therapy.

METHODS

In this multicenter, observational, and retrospective study, DDIs were assessed using Drug-PIN software (V 2/23). The association between the Drug-PIN continuous score or the Drug-PIN traffic light and the occurrence of treatment-related toxicities and oncological outcomes was evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 177 patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma undergoing BRAF/MEK targeted therapy were included. All grade toxicity was registered in 79% of patients. Cardiovascular toxicities occurred in 31 patients (17.5%). Further, 94 (55.9%) patients had comorbidities requiring specific pharmacological treatments. The median Drug-PIN score significantly increased when the target combination was added to the patient's home therapy (p-value < 0.0001). Cardiovascular toxicity was significantly associated with the Drug-PIN score (p-value = 0.048). The Drug-PIN traffic light (p = 0.00821) and the Drug-PIN score (p = 0.0291) were seen to be significant predictors of cardiotoxicity. Patients with low-grade vs. high-grade interactions showed a better prognosis regarding overall survival (OS) (p = 0.0045) and progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.012). The survival analysis of the subgroup of patients with cardiological toxicity demonstrated that patients with low-grade vs. high-grade DDIs had better outcomes in terms of OS (p = 0.0012) and a trend toward significance in PFS (p = 0.068).

CONCLUSIONS

DDIs emerged as a critical issue for the risk of treatment-related cardiovascular toxicity. Our findings support the utility of DDI assessment in melanoma patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

COMBI-r: A Prospective, Non-Interventional Study of Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in Unselected Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic BRAF V600-Mutant Melanoma

Combined BRAF/MEK-inhibition constitutes a relevant treatment option for BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. The prospective, non-interventional COMBI-r study assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of the BRAF-inhibitor dabrafenib combined with the MEK-inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced melanoma under routine clinical conditions. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary objective, and secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), disease control rate, duration of therapy, and the frequency and severity of adverse events. This study enrolled 472 patients at 55 German sites. The median PFS was 8.3 months (95%CI 7.1-9.3) and the median OS was 18.3 months (14.9-21.3), both tending to be longer in pre-treated patients. In the 147 patients with CNS metastases, PFS was similar in those requiring corticosteroids (probably representing symptomatic patients, 5.6 months (3.9-7.2)) compared with those not requiring corticosteroids (5.9 months (4.8-6.9)); however, OS was shorter in patients with brain metastases who received corticosteroids (7.8 (6.3-11.6)) compared to those who did not (11.9 months (9.6-19.5)). The integrated subjective assessment of tumor growth dynamics proved helpful to predict outcome: investigators' upfront categorization correlated well with time-to-event outcomes. Taken together, COMBI-r mirrored PFS outcomes from other prospective, observational studies and confirmed efficacy and safety findings from the pivotal phase III COMBI-d/-v and COMBI-mb trials.

Cobimetinib Plus Vemurafenib in Patients With Solid Tumors With BRAF Mutations: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study

PURPOSE

The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket study evaluating antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers with genomic alterations known to be drug targets. The results in a cohort of patients with solid tumors with BRAF mutations treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib are reported.

METHODS

Eligible patients had measurable disease (RECIST v.1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. The primary end point was disease control (DC), defined as complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) or stable disease of at least 16-weeks duration (SD16+). Low-accruing histology-specific cohorts with BRAF mutations treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib were collapsed into a single histology-pooled cohort for this analysis. The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power, .82; α, .10). The secondary end points were objective response (OR), progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients with solid tumors with BRAF mutations were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy. Patients had tumors with BRAF V600E (n = 26), K601E (n = 2), or other (n = 3) mutations. Two patients with CR (breast and ovarian cancers; V600E), 14 with PR (13 V600E, one N581I), and three with SD16+ (two V600E, one T599_V600insT) were observed with a DC rate of 68% (P < .0001; one-sided 90% CI, 54 to 100) and an OR rate of 57% (95% CI, 37 to 76). Nineteen patients experienced ≥one drug-related grade 3-5 adverse event or serious adverse event including one death attributed to treatment-related kidney injury.

CONCLUSION

Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors with BRAF V600E mutations; additional study is warranted to confirm the antitumor activity in tumors with non-V600E BRAF mutations.

Predictive Impact of RNF43 Mutations in Patients With Proficient Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Stable BRAFV600E-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Target Therapy or Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Target therapy (TT) with encorafenib plus cetuximab is a standard option in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated (mut) pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, mutations in RNF43, encoding a negative regulator of the WNT pathway, were associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with proficient mismatch repair/microsatellite stable (pMMR/MSS) BRAFV600E-mut mCRC treated with TT. Here, we explored the effect of RNF43 mutations on the efficacy of second-line TT versus standard chemotherapy (CT).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients with pMMR/MSS BRAFV600E-mut tumors, available RNF43 mutational status, and treated with second-line TT or oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based CT was analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two patients with pMMR/MSS BRAFV600E-mut mCRC were included. RNF43 was found mut in 34 (26%) cases. Among RNF43 mutants, TT was associated with longer PFS (7.7 v 3.0 months; P = .002) and higher overall response rate (ORR; 45% v 0%; P = .009) compared with CT. Conversely, among RNF43 wild-type (wt) patients, only a trend for longer PFS (4.5 v 3.7 months; P = .064) favoring TT, with no differences in ORR (P = .14), was observed. After excluding 36 patients receiving TT in third line or beyond, a longer OS (19.4 v 10.1 months; P = .022) and a numerically OS advantage (10.6 v 6.6 months; P = .068) were reported for TT both in the RNF43-mut and in the RNF43 wt groups. However, no interaction effect was reported between RNF43 mutational status and treatment in ORR (Pinteraction = .96), PFS (Pinteraction = .13), and OS (Pinteraction = .44).

CONCLUSION

Patients with pMMR/MSS BRAFV600E-mut mCRC achieve benefit from TT versus CT independently of RNF43 mutational status, although a higher magnitude of benefit from TT is observed in RNF43-mut tumors. These findings deserve confirmation in concluded and ongoing randomized trials.

Beyond EGFR inhibitors in advanced colorectal cancer: Targeting BRAF and HER2

The addition of antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies, cetuximab or panitumumab, to conventional chemotherapy has improved clinical outcomes for rat sarcoma virus (RAS) wild-type advanced colorectal cancer patients, however, durable responses and 5-year overall survival rates remain limited. BRAF V600E somatic mutation and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) amplification/overexpression have been separately implicated in primary resistance to anti-EGFR therapeutic strategies via aberrant activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway, resulting in poorer outcomes. In addition to being a negative predictive biomarker for anti-EGFR therapy, BRAF V600E mutation and HER2 amplification/overexpression serve as positive predictors of response to therapies targeting these respective tumor promoters. This review will highlight key clinical studies that support the rational use of v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) and HER2-targeted therapies, often in combination with other targeted agents, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We discuss current challenges with BRAF and HER2-targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer and potential opportunities for improvement.

Advances in the molecular mechanism and targeted therapy of radioactive-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer

Most patients with differentiated thyroid cancer have a good prognosis after radioactive iodine-131 treatment, but there are still a small number of patients who are not sensitive to radioiodine treatment and may subsequently show disease progression. Therefore, radioactive-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer treated with radioiodine usually shows reduced radioiodine uptake. Thus, when sodium iodine symporter expression, basolateral membrane localization and recycling degradation are abnormal, radioactive-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer may occur. In recent years, with the deepening of research into the pathogenesis of this disease, an increasing number of molecules have become or are expected to become therapeutic targets. The application of corresponding inhibitors or combined treatment regimens for different molecular targets may be effective for patients with advanced radioactive-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer. Currently, some targeted drugs that can improve the progression-free survival of patients with radioactive-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer, such as sorafenib and lenvatinib, have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of radioactive-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer. However, due to the adverse reactions and drug resistance caused by some targeted drugs, their application is limited. In response to targeted drug resistance and high rates of adverse reactions, research into new treatment combinations is being carried out; in addition to kinase inhibitor therapy, gene therapy and rutin-assisted iodine-131 therapy for radioactive-iodine refractory thyroid cancer have also made some progress. Thus, this article mainly focuses on sodium iodide symporter changes leading to the main molecular mechanisms in radioactive-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer, some targeted drug resistance mechanisms and promising new treatments.

Efficacy and Safety of Rechallenge with BRAF/MEK Inhibitors in Advanced Melanoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rechallenging advanced melanoma patients with BRAFi/MEKi. Seven studies, accounting for 400 patients, were included. Most patients received immunotherapy before the rechallenge, and 79% underwent rechallenge with the combination of BRAFi/MEKi. We found a median progression-free survival of 5 months and overall survival of 9.8 months. The one-year survival rate was 42.63%. Regarding response, ORR was 34% and DCR 65%. There were no new or unexpected safety concerns. Rechallenge with BRAFi/MEKi can improve outcomes in advanced melanoma patients with refractory disease. These findings have significant implications for clinical practice, particularly in the setting of progressive disease in later lines and limited treatment options.

Cutaneous melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma is a malignancy arising from melanocytes of the skin. Incidence rates are rising, particularly in White populations. Cutaneous melanoma is typically driven by exposure to ultraviolet radiation from natural sunlight and indoor tanning, although there are several subtypes that are not related to ultraviolet radiation exposure. Primary melanomas are often darkly pigmented, but can be amelanotic, with diagnosis based on a combination of clinical and histopathological findings. Primary melanoma is treated with wide excision, with margins determined by tumour thickness. Further treatment depends on the disease stage (following histopathological examination and, where appropriate, sentinel lymph node biopsy) and can include surgery, checkpoint immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or radiotherapy. Systemic drug therapies are recommended as an adjunct to surgery in patients with resectable locoregional metastases and are the mainstay of treatment in advanced melanoma. Management of advanced melanoma is complex, particularly in those with cerebral metastasis. Multidisciplinary care is essential. Systemic drug therapies, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, have substantially increased melanoma survival following a series of landmark approvals from 2011 onward.

Phase II, Open-Label Study of Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The combination of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) plus binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) has demonstrated clinical efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with BRAFV600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

In this ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II study, patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by independent radiology review (IRR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, time to response, and safety.

RESULTS

At data cutoff, 98 patients (59 treatment-naïve and 39 previously treated) with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received encorafenib plus binimetinib. Median duration of treatment was 9.2 months with encorafenib and 8.4 months with binimetinib. ORR by IRR was 75% (95% CI, 62 to 85) in treatment-naïve and 46% (95% CI, 30 to 63) in previously treated patients; median DOR was not estimable (NE; 95% CI, 23.1 to NE) and 16.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to NE), respectively. DCR after 24 weeks was 64% in treatment-naïve and 41% in previously treated patients. Median PFS was NE (95% CI, 15.7 to NE) in treatment-naïve and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.2 to NE) in previously treated patients. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (50%), diarrhea (43%), and fatigue (32%). TRAEs led to dose reductions in 24 (24%) and permanent discontinuation of encorafenib plus binimetinib in 15 (15%) patients. One grade 5 TRAE of intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at the PHAROS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/pharos/).

CONCLUSION

For patients with treatment-naïve and previously treated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC, encorafenib plus binimetinib showed a meaningful clinical benefit with a safety profile consistent with that observed in the approved indication in melanoma.

Lack of Influence of Non-Overlapping Mutations in BRAF, NRAS, or NF1 on 12-Month Best Objective Response and Long-Term Survival after Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based Treatment for Metastatic Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Non-overlapping somatic mutations in BRAF, NRAS, or NF1 genes occur in 85% of metastatic melanoma patients. It is not known whether these mutations affect immunotherapy outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Next-Gen sequencing of 324 oncogenes was performed in 73 metastatic melanoma patients. A retrospective review of immunotherapy outcome was performed.

RESULTS

BRAF fusions/internal rearrangements, BRAF V600E, NRAS, NF1 mutations, and triple-negative genotypes occurred in 6.9%, 30.1%, 17.8%, 32.9%, and 12.3% of patients, respectively. Median potential follow-up was 41.0 months. Patients with BRAF fusion/rearrangement had decreased progression-free and overall survival (p = 0.015). The other genotypes each had similar progression-free and overall survival. Patients who achieved a complete best objective response at 12 months (n = 36, 49.3%) were found to have significantly improved survival compared those who failed to achieve remissions (n = 37, 50.7%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The most important determinant of long-term survival was achievement of a complete response by 12 months following immunotherapy. PR and SD were not a stable type of response and generally resulted in progression and death from melanoma. Rare patients with BRAF fusions or rearrangements had decreased progression-free and overall survival following initial immunotherapy. Other BRAF, NRAS, or NF1 mutations were not associated with significant differences in outcome.

BRAF Mutations in CNS Tumors-Prognostic Markers and Therapeutic Targets

Gliomas are a heterogeneous group of brain tumors with limited therapeutic options. However, identification of BRAF V600E mutations in a subset of gliomas has provided a genomic-targeted approach for management of these diseases. In this review, we aimed to review the role of BRAF V600E in gliomagenesis, to characterize concurrent genomic alterations and their potential prognostic implications, and to review comprehensively the efficacy data of BRAF inhibitors (combined or not with MEK inhibitors) for the treatment of low- and high-grade gliomas. We also provide a summary of the toxicity of these agents and describe resistance mechanisms that may be circumvented by alternative genomic approaches. Although the efficacy of targeted therapy for management of BRAF V600E-mutant gliomas has mostly been assessed in small retrospective and phase 2 studies with heterogeneous populations, the data generated so far are a proof of concept that genomic-directed therapies improve outcomes of patients with refractory/relapsed glioma and underpin the need of comprehensive genomic assessments for these difficult-to-treat diseases. In the future, the role of targeted therapy in the first-line setting and of genomic-directed therapies to overcome resistance mechanisms should be assessed in well-designed clinical trials.

Early switch from run-in treatment with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib to atezolizumab after 3 months leads to rapid loss of tumour control in patients with advanced BRAFV600-positive melanoma: The ImmunoCobiVem phase 2 randomised trial

AIM

ImmunoCobiVem investigated whether a planned switch to atezolizumab after achieving tumour control during run-in with vemurafenib + cobimetinib improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to continuous targeted therapy (TT) in patients with previously untreated advanced BRAF^V600-mutated melanoma.

METHODS

In this multicenter phase 2 study, patients received vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. After 3months, patients without progressive disease (PD) were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue vemurafenib + cobimetinib (Arm A) or switch to atezolizumab (Arm B) until first documented PD (PD1). Primary outcome was PFS1 (time from start of run-in until PD1 or death). OS and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 185 patients enroled between November 2016 and December 2019, 135 were randomly assigned after the run-in period (Arm A, n = 69; Arm B, n = 66). Median PFS1 was significantly longer in Arm A versus Arm B (13.9 versus 5.9months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.84; P_Stratified=0.001). Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR 1.22; 95%CI, 0.69-2.16; P_Stratified=0.389); 2-year OS was higher in Arm B versus Arm A (67%; 95%CI, 53-78 versus 58%; 95%CI, 45-70). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 55% of patients in Arm A and 64% in Arm B; treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation of any drug in 7% and 9% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with BRAF^V600-mutated advanced melanoma who achieve tumour control with TT, early switch at 3months to atezolizumab led to rapid loss of tumour control but provided a numerical OS benefit at 2years compared with continued TT.

[Fertility, teratogenicity, and contraception during therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors]

BACKGROUND

Targeted mutation-based therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has become an integral part of systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma in the advanced setting and for the adjuvant therapy of melanoma in stage III after complete resection. Due to the increased chances of survival and early use in the adjuvant situation, fertility preservation as well as aspects of teratogenicity and pregnancy are increasingly relevant in patients who are often still young.

OBJECTIVES

To communicate the published and study-based information on fertility preservation, teratogenicity and pregnancy under therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Summaries of product characteristics as well as studies and case reports on BRAF and MEK inhibitors published in PubMed were used as sources of information.

RESULTS

There are no specific preclinical studies or experience in humans on fertility, teratogenicity, and contraception with targeted therapy. Recommendations can only be derived from toxicity studies and individual case reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients should be offered counseling on the options for fertility-protective measures before starting targeted therapy. Due to unclear teratogenicity, adjuvant melanoma therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib should not be initiated in pregnant patients. In the advanced metastatic situation, BRAF and MEK inhibitors should only be given after extensive interdisciplinary education and counselling of the pregnant patient and her partner. Patients should be informed about the need for adequate contraception during targeted therapy.

Tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab and/or tremelimumab in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma: a phase 1 study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in first line cutaneous melanoma. However, there is a high unmet need for patients who progress on these therapies and combination therapies are being explored to improve outcomes. Tebentafusp is a first-in-class gp100×CD3 ImmTAC bispecific that demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit (HR 0.51) in metastatic uveal melanoma despite a modest overall response rate of 9%. This phase 1b trial evaluated the safety and initial efficacy of tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab (anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)) and/or tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4) in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma (mCM), the majority of whom progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitors.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter, phase 1b, dose-escalation trial, HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with mCM received weekly intravenous tebentafusp with increasing monthly doses of durvalumab and/or tremelimumab starting day 15 of each cycle. The primary objective was to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose for each combination. Efficacy analyses were performed in all tebentafusp with durvalumab±tremelimumab treated patients with a sensitivity analysis in those who progressed on prior anti-PD(L)1 therapy.

RESULTS

85 patients were assigned to receive tebentafusp in combination with durvalumab (n=43), tremelimumab (n=13), or durvalumab and tremelimumab (n=29). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, including 76 (89%) who received prior anti-PD(L)1. Maximum target doses of tebentafusp (68 mcg) alone or in combination with durvalumab (20 mg/kg) and tremelimumab (1 mg/kg) were tolerated; MTD was not formally identified for any arm. Adverse event profile was consistent with each individual therapy and there were no new safety signals nor treatment-related deaths. In the efficacy subset (n=72), the response rate was 14%, tumor shrinkage rate was 41% and 1-year OS rate was 76% (95% CI: 70% to 81%). The 1-year OS for triplet combination (79%; 95% CI: 71% to 86%) was similar to tebentafusp plus durvalumab (74%; 95% CI: 67% to 80%).

CONCLUSION

At maximum target doses, the safety of tebentafusp with checkpoint inhibitors was consistent with safety of each individual therapy. Tebentafusp with durvalumab demonstrated promising efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with mCM, including those who progressed on prior anti-PD(L)1.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02535078.

Real world evidence of Lenvatinib + anti PD-1 as an advanced line for metastatic melanoma

Introduction

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the prognosis of patients with metastatic melanoma. To date, the most active regimen is the combination of ipilimumab + nivolumab (ipi-nivo) achieving a response rate of nearly 60% and a median survival (OS) of 6 years. However, approximately 40% of patients experience primary resistance, while around 50% experience secondary resistance, highlighting the need for an effective second-line treatment option The recently published results on the use of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab in the advanced line setting led to the adoption of this regimen at our institution. Here we present our experience with this regimen, focusing on efficacy and safety.

Methods

Electronic medical records of patients treated at a tertiary referral melanoma center, with at least one cycle of anti PD-1 + lenvatinib from 2020 to 2023 were analyzed for baseline demographic characteristics, disease related characteristics and treatment outcomes.

Results

Forty-two patients were identified. The Response rate (RR) was 28% and the disease control rate was 38%. Responses were seen across different melanoma subtypes, including 67% in acral melanoma, 20% in uveal melanoma, and 25% in mucosal melanoma. Patients with a more aggressive disease manifested by elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) achieved a RR of 26%, while patients with active central nervous system (CNS) metastases had a RR of 31%, and an intra-cranial RR of 23%. Responses were seen across lines of treatment, with a 25% RR in the second and third lines, and a 36% RR in the fourth and fifth lines. The median progression free survival was 3 months, and the median survival was 11 months. The treatment was not easily tolerated with 31% of the patients experiencing grade 3-4 toxicity, which was manageable through dose interruptions and reductions. Only 7% of patients discontinued the treatment due to toxicity.

Conclusion

Lenvatinib in combination with anti-PD1 had demonstrated both relative safety and efficacy in patients with metastatic melanoma of all subtypes in the advanced line setting. We are eagerly anticipating the mature results of the LEAP-004 study hoping that this regimen will receive regulatory approval, paving the way for its widespread adoption in daily practice worldwide.

BRAF V600-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma and Targeted Therapy Resistance: An Update of the Current Knowledge

Melanoma is the most common cause of death in skin cancer due to its high metastatic potential. While targeted therapies have improved the care of patients with metastatic melanoma harboring the BRAFV600E mutation, these treatments are associated with a high frequency of resistance. Resistance factors are related to cellular adaptation as well as to changes in the tumor microenvironment. At the cellular level, resistance involves mutations, overexpression, activation, or inhibition of effectors involved in cell signaling pathways such as MAPK, PI3K/AKT, MITF, and epigenetic factors (miRNAs). In addition, several components of the melanoma microenvironment, such as soluble factors, collagen, and stromal cells also play a crucial role in this resistance. In fact, extracellular matrix remodeling impacts the physical and chemical properties with changes in the stiffness and acidity, respectively of the microenvironment. The cellular and immune components of the stroma are also affected, including immune cells and CAF. The aim of this manuscript is to review the mechanisms responsible for resistance to targeted therapies in BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic melanoma.

Expanding the Benefit: Dabrafenib/Trametinib as Tissue-Agnostic Therapy for BRAF V600E-Positive Adult and Pediatric Solid Tumors

The recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the dabrafenib/trametinib combination as a tissue-agnostic treatment for solid tumors with BRAF V600E mutation is the result of more than 20 years of extensive research into BRAF mutations in human cancer, the underlying biological mechanisms that drive BRAF-mediated tumor growth, and the clinical testing and refinement of selective RAF and MEK kinase inhibitors. Such approval marks a significant achievement in the field of oncology and represents a major step forward in our ability to treat cancer. Early evidence supported the use of dabrafenib/trametinib combination in melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and anaplastic thyroid cancer. Furthermore, data from basket trials have demonstrated consistently good response rates in various tumors, including biliary tract cancer, low-grade glioma, high-grade glioma, hairy cell leukemia, and multiple other malignancies, which has been the basis for FDA approval of a tissue-agnostic indication in adult and pediatric patients with BRAF V600E-positive solid tumors. From a clinical standpoint, our review delves into the efficacy of the dabrafenib/trametinib combination for BRAF V600E-positive tumors: examining the underlying rationale for its use, evaluating the latest evidence on its potential benefits, and discussing the possible associated adverse effects and strategies to minimize their impact. Additionally, we explore potential resistance mechanisms and future landscape of BRAF-targeted therapies.