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/).

A phase 1/2 study of disulfiram and copper with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

BACKGROUND

This phase 1/2 study evaluates the safety and preliminary efficacy of combining disulfiram and copper (DSF/Cu) with radiation therapy (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM).

METHODS

Patients received standard RT and TMZ with DSF (250-375 mg daily) and Cu, followed by adjuvant TMZ plus DSF (500 mg/day) and Cu. Pharmacokinetic analyses determined drug concentrations in plasma and tumors using high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients, with a median follow-up of 26.0 months, were treated, including 12 IDH-mutant, 9 NF1-mutant, 3 BRAF-mutant, and 9 other IDH-wildtype cases. In the phase-1 arm, 18 patients were treated; dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) probabilities were 10% (95% CI: 3-29%) at 250 mg/day and 21% (95% CI: 7-42%) at 375 mg/day. The phase 2 arm treated 15 additional patients at 250 mg/day. No significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival were noted between IDH-mutant and NF1-mutant cohorts compared to institutionally counterparts treated without DSF/Cu. However, extended remission occurred in three BRAF-mutant patients. Diethyl-dithiocarbamate-copper, the proposed active metabolite of DSF/Cu, was detected in plasma but not in tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

The maximum tolerated dose of DSF with RT and TMZ is 375 mg/day. DSF/Cu showed limited clinical efficacy for most patients. However, promising efficacy was observed in BRAF-mutant GBM, warranting further investigation.

Dose-escalation trial of combination dabrafenib, trametinib, and AT13387 in patients with BRAF-mutant solid tumors

BACKGROUND

Combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is an active regimen in patients who have BRAF V600E-mutated tumors; however, the clinical efficacy of this therapy is limited by resistance. Preclinically, the addition of heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibition improves the efficacy of BRAF inhibitor therapy in both BRAF inhibitor-sensitive and BRAF inhibitor-resistant mutant cell lines.

METHODS

Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program study 9557 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02097225) is a phase 1 study that was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the small-molecule HSP90 inhibitor, AT13387, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAF V600E/K-mutant solid tumors. Correlative analyses evaluated the expression of HSP90 client proteins and chaperones.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients with metastatic, BRAF V600E-mutant solid tumors were enrolled using a 3 + 3 design at four dose levels, and 21 patients were evaluable for efficacy assessment. The most common tumor type was colorectal cancer (N = 12). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in one patient at dose level 3 and in one patient at dose level 4; specifically, myelosuppression and fatigue, respectively. The maximum tolerated dose was oral dabafenib 150 mg twice daily, oral trametinib 2 mg once daily, and intravenous AT13387 260 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15. The best response was a partial response in two patients and stable disease in eight patients, with an overall response rate of 9.5% (90% exact confidence interval [CI], 2%-27%), a disease control rate of 47.6% (90% CI, 29%-67%), and a median overall survival of 5.1 months (90% CI, 3.4-7.6 months). There were no consistent proteomic changes associated with response or resistance, although responders did have reductions in BRAF expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor downregulation using HSP90 inhibition was observed in one patient who had colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

HSP90 inhibition combined with BRAF/MEK inhibition was safe and produced evidence of modest disease control in a heavily pretreated population. Additional translational work may identify tumor types and resistance mechanisms that are most sensitive to this approach.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer harboring BRAF mutations

Background

Despite immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) being widely used to treat patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), few studies examine the role of ICI in patients with proto-oncogene B-Raf, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) mutations.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted for patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC who received treatment at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital between 2014 and 2022. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end point was best response (RECIST, version 1.1).

Results

The study involved a total of 34 patients with 54 treatments recorded. The median PFS for the whole cohort was 5.8 months and the overall objective response rate (ORR) was 24%. Patients who were treated with ICI combined with chemotherapy reported a median PFS of 12.6 months and an ORR of 44%. Those who were treated with non-ICI therapy came with a median PFS of 5.3 months and an ORR of 14%. Specifically, patients had better clinical benefits with first-line ICI-combined therapy. The PFS was 18.5 months whereas that of non-ICI group was 4.1 months. The ORR was 56% in ICI-combined group and 10% in non-ICI cohort.

Conclusions

The findings observed an evidential and significant susceptibility to ICIs combined therapy in patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC, especially in first-line treatment.

Exploring clinical and gene expression markers of benefit from FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer: Subgroup analyses of the TRIBE2 study

BACKGROUND

Recent data from the TRIBE2 study have failed to suggest a higher magnitude of benefit from upfront FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as previously reported in the TRIBE study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical characteristics and gene expression signatures of patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC enrolled in the TRIBE2 study were evaluated with the aim of understanding that patients may derive benefit from the intensification of the upfront chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Of 46 BRAF-mutant tumour samples analysed, 24 (52%) and 22 (48%) were classified as BM1 and BM2, respectively, and 27 (59%) and 19 (41%) were assigned to ligand-independent (LI) and ligand-dependent (LD) Wnt pathway subgroups, respectively. No prognostic impact was shown for both BM1/BM2 and LI/LD subtypes. No interaction was evident between BM1/BM2 or LI/LD signatures and the benefit provided by FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab. Significant interaction effect was evident in terms of progression-free survival between treatment arm and primary tumour sidedness (P = 0.05) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Gene expression analysis failed to identify patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC candidate to upfront FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab. ECOG-PS >0 and left-sidedness seem associated with no benefit from the intensified treatment.

AIM2 Inhibits BRAF-Mutant Colorectal Cancer Growth in a Caspase-1-Dependent Manner

Absent in melanoma 2 (AIM2), a DNA sensor that plays an important role in natural immunity system, has been reported to participate in colorectal cancer (CRC) development. However, the functional role of AIM2 in BRAF-mutant CRC remains unclear. In this study, we first investigated AIM2 expression level in BRAF-mutant CRC tumor tissues. Overexpression of AIM2 in CRC cells was performed to investigate the effect of AIM2 on CRC cell viability, and cell death detection and caspase activity assay were performed to explore the mechanism that AIM2 impacts the growth of BRAF-mutant CRC cells. Moreover, we confirmed the antitumor effect of AIM2 in BRAF-mutant CRC cell-derived tumor xenograft (CDX) models as well as patient-derived organoids (PDOs). Herein, we reported that AIM2 expression was lower in BRAF-mutant than that in BRAF wild-type CRC tumor tissues. Restoring the expression of AIM2 in BRAF-mutant CRC cells greatly inhibits the tumor cell growth by inducing necrotic cell death. Mechanism studies revealed that AIM2-induced cell death is in a caspase-1-dependent manner. Additionally, overexpression of AIM2 significantly inhibits tumor growth and metastasis in BRAF-mutant CRC in vivo, which was further confirmed in BRAF-mutant CRC PDOs. Taken together, our data suggested that AIM2 inhibits BRAF-mutant colon cancer growth in a caspase-1-dependent manner, which may provide evidence to understand the pathogenesis of CRC with BRAF-mutant, as well as new strategies for manipulation of CRC.

Simultaneously Inhibiting BCL2 and MCL1 Is a Therapeutic Option for Patients with Advanced Melanoma

There is an urgent need to develop treatments for patients with melanoma who are refractory to or ineligible for immune checkpoint blockade, including patients who lack BRAF-V600E/K mutations. This is often the case in patients diagnosed with rare melanoma subtypes such as mucosal and acral melanoma. Here, we analyzed data from the cutaneous melanoma The Cancer Genome Atlas Network (TCGA) transcriptomic and proteomic databases for differential expression of apoptosis molecules between melanomas with or without BRAF hotspot mutations. Our data indicated higher B-cell CLL/lymphoma 2 (BCL2) expression in melanoma without BRAF hotspot mutations, suggesting that BH3 mimetics, such as ABT-199 (venetoclax, a small molecule against BCL2), may be a potential therapeutic option for these patients. We explored the efficacy of combining two BH3 mimetics, ABT-199 and a myeloid cell leukemia sequence 1 (MCL1) inhibitor (S63845 or S64315/MIK665) in cutaneous, mucosal and acral melanomas, in vitro and in vivo. Our data indicate this combination induced cell death in a broad range of melanoma cell lines, including melanoma initiating cell populations, and was more potent in melanoma cells without BRAF-V600E/K mutations. Our knockdown/knockout experiments suggest that several pro-apoptotic BCL2 family members, BCL2-like 11 (apoptosis facilitator) (BIM), phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate-induced protein 1 (NOXA) or BID, play a role in the combination-induced effects. Overall, our study supports the rationale for combining an MCL1 inhibitor with a BCL2 inhibitor as a therapeutic option in patients with advanced melanoma.

A first-in-human phase I, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study of the oral RAF/VEGFR-2 inhibitor (RAF265) in locally advanced or metastatic melanoma independent from BRAF mutation status

To establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose‐limiting toxicities (DLT), safety profile, and anti‐tumor efficacy of RAF265. We conducted a multicenter, open‐label, phase‐I, dose‐escalation trial of RAF265, an orally available RAF kinase/VEGFR‐2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma. Pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis, pharmacodynamics (PD) and tumor response assessment were conducted. We evaluated metabolic tumor response by 18[F]‐fluorodeoxyglucose‐positron‐emission tomography (FDG‐PET), tissue biomarkers using immunohistochemistry (IHC), and modulators of angiogenesis. RAF265 has a serum half‐life of approximately 200 h. The MTD was 48 mg once daily given continuously. Among 77 patients, most common treatment‐related adverse effects were fatigue (52%), diarrhea (34%), weight loss (31%) and vitreous floaters (27%). Eight of 66 evaluable patients (12.1%) had an objective response, including seven partial and one complete response. Responses occurred in BRAF‐mutant and BRAF wild‐type (WT) patients. Twelve of 58 (20.7%) evaluable patients had a partial metabolic response. On‐treatment versus pretreatment IHC staining in 23 patients showed dose‐dependent p‐ERK inhibition. We observed a significant temporal increase in placental growth factor levels and decrease in soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (sVEGFR‐2) levels in all dose levels. RAF265 is an oral RAF/VEGFR‐2 inhibitor that produced antitumor responses, metabolic responses, and modulated angiogenic growth factor levels. Antitumor activity occurred in patients with BRAF‐mutant and BRAF‐WT disease. Despite low activity at tolerable doses, this study provides a framework for the development of pan‐RAF inhibitors and modulators of angiogenesis for the treatment of melanoma.

Investigating the poor outcomes of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer: analysis from 2530 patients in randomised clinical trials

Background

To improve strategies for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) patients, we examined individual data from patients treated with chemotherapy alone in three randomised trials to identify points on the treatment pathway where outcomes differ from BRAF wild-types.

Patients and methods

2530 aCRC patients were assessed from three randomised trials. End-points were progression-free survival, response rate, disease control rate, post-progression survival (P-PS) and overall survival. Treatments included first-line oxaliplatin/fluorouracil (OxFU) and second-line irinotecan. Clinicians were unaware of BRAF-status.

Results

231 patients (9.1%) had BRAF-mutant tumours. BRAF-mutation conferred significantly worse survival independent of associated clinicopathological factors known to be prognostic. Compared with wild-type, BRAF-mutant patients treated with first-line OxFU had similar DCR (59.2% versus 72%; adjusted OR = 0.76, P = 0.24) and PFS (5.7 versus 6.3 months; adjusted HR = 1.14, P = 0.26). Following progression on first-line chemotherapy, BRAF-mutant patients had a markedly shorter P-PS (4.2 versus 9.2 months, adjusted HR = 1.69, P < 0.001). Fewer BRAF-mutant patients received second-line treatment (33% versus 51%, P < 0.001), but BRAF-mutation was not associated with inferior second-line outcomes (RR adjusted OR = 0.56, P = 0.45; PFS adjusted HR = 1.01, P = 0.93). Significant clinical heterogeneity within the BRAF-mutant population was observed: a proportion (24.3%) had good first-line PFS and P-PS (both >6 months; OS = 24.0 months); however, 36.5% progressed rapidly through first-line chemotherapy and thereafter, with OS = 4.7 months.

Conclusions

BRAF-mutant aCRC confers a markedly worse prognosis independent of associated clinicopathological features. Chemotherapy provides meaningful improvements in outcome throughout treatment lines. Post-progression survival is markedly worse and vigilance is required to ensure appropriate delivery of treatment after first-line progression.