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

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.

Regorafenib in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a single-center case series

Melanoma patients failing all approved treatment options have a poor prognosis. The antimelanoma activity of regorafenib (REGO), a multitargeted kinase inhibitor, has not been investigated in this patient population. The objective response rate and safety of REGO treatment in advanced melanoma patients was investigated retrospectively. Twenty-seven patients received REGO treatment. All patients had progressed on anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibition and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (in case of a BRAF V600mutation). REGO was administered in continuous dosing and combined (upfront or sequentially) with nivolumab (n = 5), trametinib (n = 8), binimetinib (n = 2), encorafenib (n = 1), dabrafenib/trametinib (n = 9), or encorafenib/binimetinib (n = 7). The best overall response was partial response (PR) in five patients (18.5%) and stable disease in three patients (11.1%). Three of seven (42.8%) BRAF  V600mut patients treated with REGO in combination with BRAF/MEK inhibitors obtained a PR (including regression of brain metastases in all three patients). In addition, PR was documented in a BRAF V600mut patient treated with REGO plus anti-PD-1, and a NRASQ61mut patient treated with REGO plus a MEK inhibitor. Common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events included arterial hypertension (n = 7), elevated transaminase levels (n = 5), abdominal pain (n = 3), colitis (n = 2), anorexia (n = 1), diarrhea (n = 1), fever (n = 1), duodenal perforation (n = 1), and colonic bleeding (n = 1). Median progression-free survival was 11.0 weeks (95% confidence interval, 7.1-14.9); median overall survival was 23.1 weeks (95% confidence interval, 13.0-33.3). REGO has a manageable safety profile in advanced melanoma patients, in monotherapy as well as combined with BRAF/MEK inhibitors or PD-1 blocking monoclonal antibodies. The triplet combination of REGO with BRAF/MEK inhibitors appears most active, particularly in the BRAF V600mut patients.

A novel molecular subtyping based on multi-omics analysis for prognosis predicting in colorectal melanoma: A 16-year prospective multicentric study

Colorectal melanoma (CRM) is a rare malignant tumor with severe complications, and there is currently a lack of systematic research. We conducted a study that combined proteomics and mutation data of CRM from a cohort of three centers over a 16-years period (2005-2021). The patients were divided into a training set consisting of two centers and a testing set comprising the other center. Unsupervised clustering was conducted on the training set to form two molecular subtypes for clinical characterization and functional analysis. The testing set was used to validate the survival differences between the two subtypes. The comprehensive analysis identified two subtypes of CRM: immune exhausted C1 cluster and DNA repair C2 cluster. The former subtype exhibited characteristics of metabolic disturbance, immune suppression, and poor prognosis, along with APC mutations. A machine learning algorithm named Support Vector Machine (SVM) was applied to predict the classification of CRM patients based on protein expression in the external testing cohort. Two subtypes of primary CRM with clinical and proteomic characteristics provides a reference for subsequent diagnosis and treatments.

Clinical significance of genetic profiling based on different anatomic sites in patients with mucosal melanoma who received or did not receive immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

To date, data on the efficacy of targeted therapies for mucosal melanoma (MM) are limited. In this study, we analyzed genetic alterations according to the primary site of origin, which could provide clues for targeted therapy for MM.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 112 patients with MM. Targeted sequencing was performed to analyze genetic aberrations. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted with the log-rank test to compare the significance among subgroups.

RESULTS

In total, 112 patients with MM were included according to the anatomic sites: 38 (33.9%) in the head and neck, 22 (19.6%) in the genitourinary tract, 21 (18.8%) in the anorectum, 19 (17.0%) in the esophagus, 10 (8.9%) in the uvea, and 2 (1.8%) in the small bowel. The most significantly mutated genes included BRAF (17%), KIT (15%), RAS (15%), TP53 (13%), NF1 (12%), SF3B1 (11%), GNA11 (7%), GNAQ (5%), and FBXW7 (4%). A large number of chromosomal structural variants was found. The anatomic sites of esophagus and small bowel were independent risk factors for progression-free survival (PFS, hazard ratio [HR] 4.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.42-9.45, P < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS, HR 5.26, 95% CI 2.51-11.03, P < 0.0001). Casitas B-lineage lymphoma (CBL) mutants showed significantly poorer PFS and OS. In contrast, MM patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) had a significantly more favorable OS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.75, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal the genetic features of patients with MM, mainly across six anatomic sites, offering a potential avenue for targeted therapies.