BRAFV600-mutant Melanoma Research Articles

The Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion of Binimetinib Following a Single Oral Dose of [14C]Binimetinib 45 mg in Healthy Male Participants.

Binimetinib is a MEK1/2 inhibitor particularly active in cells harboring activating mutations in the MAP kinase pathway, especially in BRAF and NRAS. Binimetinib, in combination with encorafenib, has received marketing approval in several jurisdictions for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600E or V600K mutant melanoma. The absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of binimetinib were evaluated by administering a carbon 14-labeled binimetinib 45 mg dose (containing 40 μCi of radiolabeled material) to 6 healthy male participants. A total of 62.3% of the radioactivity was eliminated in the feces, while 31.4% was eliminated in the urine. The overall recovery of radioactivity in the excreta for all 6 participants was 93.6% (3.27%), indicating that good mass balance was achieved. The total percentage of the dose in the excreta of all metabolites containing the N-demethylation clearance of binimetinib by CYP1A2 and CYP2C19 was approximately 17.8%. The contribution of direct glucuronidation to the clearance of binimetinib was estimated to be 61.2% and represented the majority of the clearance. Additionally, excretion of unchanged binimetinib into the urine was estimated to have contributed 6.9% to the overall clearance. Based on study results, binimetinib is at least ≈ 50% absorbed, but based on its PK properties and because its glucuronide conjugates are unstable in the GI tract, absorption is thought to be significantly higher.

Protocatechuic aldehyde sensitizes BRAF-mutant melanoma cells to temozolomide through inducing FANCD2 degradation.

Temozolomide (TMZ)-based chemotherapy is a primary regimen for melanoma patients who have failed targeted therapy or immunotherapy. However, the low response rate of TMZ-based chemotherapy challenges the patients' prognosis. BRAFV600E mutation is the most frequently mutated site in melanoma. This study investigates the synergistic effect of protocatechuic aldehyde (PA) and temozolomide (TMZ) in killing BRAFV600E mutant melanoma cells and BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma cells as well as the underlying molecular mechanisms. We report that PA synergistically promoted TMZ cytotoxicity to both BRAF inhibitor-sensitive and BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma cells. Combination of PA and TMZ increased DNA double-strand breaks and elevated apoptosis. Mechanism study reveals that PA promoted TMZ cytotoxicity through inducing FANCD2 degradation. Our results suggest that PA is a potential compound for melanoma combinational chemotherapy, regardless of O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) status.

A plain language summary of the 7-year update from part 1 of the COLUMBUS study: encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma.

A plain language summary of the 7-year update from part 1 of the COLUMBUS study: encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma.

Second-Generation Cap Analogue Prodrugs for Targeting Aberrant Eukaryotic Translation Initiation Factor 4E Activity in Cancer.

Dysregulation of translation is a hallmark of cancer that enables rapid changes in cellular protein production to shape oncogenic phenotypes. Translation initiation is governed by the m7GpppX cap-binding protein eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (eIF4E), the rate-limiting factor of cap-dependent translation initiation. eIF4E is overexpressed in many cancers and drives the production of oncoproteins that promote tumor growth and survival. Accordingly, eIF4E has been established as an attractive albeit challenging therapeutic target. Building upon our previous work of developing cell-permeable cap analogue prodrugs that inhibit eIF4E binding to the m7GpppX cap, herein we disclose the design of second-generation cap analogues with alternative N-9-substituted linkers which exhibit anticancer activity in BRAFV600E mutant melanoma cell lines.

A comparison of real-world data on adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III BRAF V600 mutated melanoma - Results of systematic literature research.

Over the past decade, PD-1-based immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies (TT) with BRAF and MEK inhibitors transformed melanoma treatment. Both are widely used in the adjuvant setting. However, for patients with a BRAF V600 mutation, the optimal adjuvant therapy remains unclear due to the lack of head-to-head comparison studies. We conducted a systematic review of real-world data on adjuvant therapy in stage III melanoma to determine the best option for patients with BRAF V600 mutations. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for TT and ICI using Digitizelt software. Nine publications with 3625 patients were included. TT showed better relapse-free survival (RFS) at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months than ICI. A similar trend was observed for distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), with no apparent difference in overall survival. Real-world data suggest that adjuvant TT may be associated with better RFS and DMFS in stage III BRAF V600-mutated melanoma compared to ICI.

Regorafenib Combined with BRAF/MEK Inhibitors for the Treatment of Refractory Melanoma Brain Metastases.

There are no active treatment options for patients with progressive melanoma brain metastases (MBM) failing immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi). Regorafenib (REGO), an oral multi-kinase inhibitor (incl. RAF-dimer inhibition), can overcome adaptive resistance to BRAF/MEKi in preclinical models. This is a single-center retrospective case series of patients with refractory MBM treated with REGO plus BRAF/MEKi (compassionate use). A total of 22 patients were identified (18 BRAF-mutant, 4 NRASQ61-mutant; 19 with progressive MBM; 11 on corticosteroids). Thirteen BRAFV600-mutant patients were progressing on BRAF/MEKi at the time of REGO association. BRAF-mutant patients received REGO (40-80 mg once daily) combined with BRAF/MEKi, NRAS-mutant patients were treated with REGO + MEKi (+low-dose BRAFi to mitigate skin-toxicity). Grade 3 TRAE included arterial hypertension (n = 4) and maculopapular rash (n = 3). There were no G4/5 TRAE. In BRAF-mutant patients, overall and intracranial objective response rates (overall ORR and IC-ORR) were 11 and 29%, and overall and intracranial disease control rates (overall DCR and IC-DCR) were 44 and 59%, respectively. In NRAS-mutant patients overall ORR and IC-ORR were 0 and 25% and overall DCR and IC-DCR were 25 and 50%, respectively. The median PFS and OS were, respectively, 7.1 and 16.4 weeks in BRAF-mutant and 8.6 and 10.1 weeks in NRAS-mutant patients. In heavily pretreated patients with refractory MBM, REGO combined with BRAF/MEKi demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity with an acceptable safety profile. In BRAFV600-mutant melanoma patients, responses cannot solely be attributed to BRAF/MEKi rechallenge. Further investigation in a prospective trial is ongoing to increase understanding of the efficacy.

MEK Pathway Inhibitor-Mediated Response in BRAF V600-Mutant Melanoma with Brain Parenchymal and Leptomeningeal Metastases.

MEK Pathway Inhibitor-Mediated Response in BRAF V600-Mutant Melanoma with Brain Parenchymal and Leptomeningeal Metastases.

Adjuvant Radiation Therapy in Macroscopic Regional Nodal Melanoma.

Adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for macroscopic regional nodal cutaneous melanoma has evolved. A significant step was the discovery of targeted therapies, particularly towards V600E-mutated melanoma, and immunotherapy under its different kinds. Prior to this, the defining trial was the Australia and New Zealand Melanoma Trials Group (ANZMTG) 01.02/Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 02.01 phase III trial that showed that ART using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) decreased in-field recurrence by 50% (48 Gray (Gy) in 20 fractions). After the advent of systemic therapies, a trial of the combination targeted therapy of dabrafenib plus trametinib toward BRAF V600-mutant nodal cutaneous melanoma showed that all 35 patients achieved a pathological response. Radiotherapy (RT) was found to be safe to give with concurrent combination therapy. A retrospective immunotherapy study found that in 71 patients that received ART after a first recurrence, further in-field recurrence significantly decreased (p = 0.01). For those tumours that do recur in-field, there are now competing therapies like Talimogene laherparepvec or T-VEC. Generally, ART is now used at the first recurrence. The challenge now is to find which melanomas are truly radiosensitive if ART is to have any future role in this scenario.

PDE4D drives rewiring of the MAPK pathway in BRAF-mutated melanoma resistant to MAPK inhibitors

BackgroundPhosphodiesterase type 4D (PDE4D) breaks down cyclic AMP (cAMP) reducing the signaling of this intracellular second messenger which plays a major role in melanocyte pathophysiology. In advanced melanoma, expression of PDE4D is increased, plays a role in tumor invasion and is negatively associated with survival. In the current work, we investigated the role of PDE4D in the resistance of BRAF-mutated melanoma to mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway-targeted therapy.MethodsEstablished human melanoma cell line sensitive and resistant to BRAF and MEK inhibitors and tumor tissues from melanoma patients were used in this study. Immunoblotting was used to analyze protein expression and quantitative reverse transcription-PCR was used to analyze mRNA expression. DNA methylation analysis was evaluated via bisulfite treatment followed by quantitative PCR. Cell viability was measured by clonogenic assays or spheroid cultures. Cell xenograft experiments in immunodeficient mice were used to validate the results in vivo.ResultsAnalysis of baseline tumors from patients with BRAFV600E-mutated melanoma treated with MAPK inhibitors showed that higher PDE4D expression in situ predicted worse survival in patients. Furthermore, acquired resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors was associated with overexpression of PDE4D in situ and ex vivo. The overexpression of the PDE4D5 isoform in melanoma cells resistant to targeted therapies was explained by demethylation or deletion of a CpG island located upstream of the PDE4D5 promoter. We further showed that PDE4D overexpression allowed RAF1 activation, promoting a switch from BRAF to RAF1 isoform in BRAF-mutated melanoma, favoring resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors. As a result, pharmacological inhibition of PDE4 activity impeded the proliferation of resistant cells ex vivo and in vivo. The anti-tumorigenic activity of PDE4 inhibitor was achieved via inhibition of the Hippo pathway which plays an important role in resistance to targeted therapies.ConclusionsIn summary, our research showed that PDE4D drives rewiring of the MAPK pathway in BRAF-mutated melanoma resistant to MAPK inhibitors and suggests that PDE4 inhibition is a novel therapeutic option for treatment of BRAF-mutated melanoma patients.

Abstract B047: Monitoring treatment response and toxicity in BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma with circulating cell-free DNA

Abstract Background: The DREAMseq trial (EA6134, NCT02224781) was a national multi-center randomized phase III trial coordinated by ECOG-ACRIN that found that immune checkpoint inhibitor (IO) treatment achieves improved survival outcomes compared to targeted therapy (TT) in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. Still, approximately 40% of patients do not respond to IO, and existing biomarkers fail to distinguish this subset of patients who do not benefit from IO therapy. Additionally, as many as 80% of patients may experience immune- related adverse events (irAEs), which range from mild dermatological symptoms to life- threatening myocarditis. Here, we explore the use of the methylation status of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in serially collected blood samples to measure response and toxicity in the context of IO- and TT-treated metastatic melanoma. Methods: Serial serum samples were collected from patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab (IO) or dabrafenib/trametinib (TT). Circulating cfDNA was isolated from serially collected serum samples, enriched for regions of interest by hybridization capture and sequenced using enzymatic methyl-seq. Cell-type deconvolution was performed to determine the abundance of cell type- specific methylation patterns of cfDNA molecules in patient serum at different time points of treatment. The BRAF V600 mutation abundance in total cfDNA was also assessed. Results: We identified melanocyte lineage-specific DNA methylation regions and demonstrate that the methylation status of these regions remains conserved in malignant melanoma. We characterized the changes in abundance of the melanocyte-lineage cfDNA over the course of treatment and show that these changes distinguish responders from non-responders to either IO or TT. Furthermore, we track the abundance of cell type-specific DNA from normal tissues to identify markers indicative of adverse effects or disease progression. Conclusions: We established melanocyte-lineage methylation markers and evaluated the use of cell-type specific DNA methylation to monitor treatment effects of immune checkpoint or BRAF/MEK inhibitors in metastatic melanoma using serially collected blood samples. Citation Format: Sidharth S Jain, A. Patrick IV McDeed, Megan E McNamara, Amber R Alley, Dori S Rosenstrauch, Harry Sun, Natalie Thompson, John M Kirkwood, Geoffrey T Gibney, Michael B Atkins, Anton Wellstein. Monitoring treatment response and toxicity in BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma with circulating cell-free DNA [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Liquid Biopsy: From Discovery to Clinical Implementation; 2024 Nov 13-16; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2024;30(21_Suppl):Abstract nr B047.

PHGDH Induction by MAPK Is Essential for Melanoma Formation and Creates an Actionable Metabolic Vulnerability.

Overexpression of phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase (PHGDH), the rate-limiting enzyme in the serine synthesis pathway, promotes melanomagenesis, melanoma cell proliferation, and survival of metastases in serine-low environments such as the brain. Here, we found that PHGDH is universally increased in melanoma cells and required for melanomagenesis. Although PHGDH amplification explained PHGDH overexpression in a subset of melanomas, oncogenic BRAFV600E also promoted PHGDH transcription through mTORC1-mediated translation of ATF4. Importantly, depletion of PHGDH in genetic mouse melanoma models blocked tumor formation. In addition to BRAFV600E-mediated upregulation, PHGDH was further induced by exogenous serine restriction. Surprisingly, BRAFV600E inhibition diminished serine restriction-mediated PHGDH expression by preventing ATF4 induction. Consequently, melanoma cells could be specifically starved of serine by combining BRAFV600E inhibition with exogenous serine restriction, which promoted cell death in vitro and attenuated melanoma growth in vivo. In summary, this study identified that PHGDH is essential for melanomagenesis and regulated by BRAFV600E, revealing a targetable vulnerability in BRAFV600E-mutant melanoma. Significance: BRAFV600E promotes the expression of the serine synthesis enzyme PHGDH, which is required for melanoma formation, and can be targeted to sensitize melanoma to dietary serine restriction, providing a melanoma cell-specific treatment strategy.

First-line encorafenib plus binimetinib and pembrolizumab for advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma: Safety lead-in results from the randomized phase III STARBOARD study

BackgroundBRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors (BRAFi/MEKi) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are approved for BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma. Combinations of BRAFi/MEKi with CPIs may further improve outcomes and could offer additional treatment strategies. MethodsSTARBOARD (NCT04657991) is a phase III study with an initial safety lead-in (SLI) phase conducted to determine the recommended phase III dose (RP3D) for encorafenib in combination with binimetinib and pembrolizumab. Patients with untreated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant cutaneous melanoma received binimetinib 45 mg twice daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus encorafenib 450 mg once daily (COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab) or 300 mg once daily (COMBO300 plus pembrolizumab). The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Secondary endpoints included safety, objective response, time to response, and duration of response. Progression-free survival was assessed post hoc. ResultsIn the SLI, the median follow-up duration was 19.4 months. Twenty patients received COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab and 17 received COMBO300 plus pembrolizumab. DLTs occurred in 1 of 17 DLT-evaluable patients in the COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab arm and in 2 of 17 DLT-evaluable patients in the COMBO300 plus pembrolizumab arm. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either treatment arm. The overall response rate was 65.0 % in the COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab arm and 47.1 % in the COMBO300 plus pembrolizumab arm. ConclusionThe STARBOARD SLI showed that safety across the cohorts was generally comparable to the known safety profile of each agent. The standard dose regimen of COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab was chosen as the RP3D.

INEAS's Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vemurafenib: Paving the Way for Value-Based Pricing in Tunisia.

The Tunisian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body, INEAS, conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of vemurafenib in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. The objective of this analysis was to enable the use of value-based pricing as a new approach to price negotiation. This study was part of a broader HTA report that was prepared in response to a joint request from the regulatory authorities and the CNAM, Tunisia's compulsory insurance scheme. Our analysis was based on a probabilistic Markov cohort model that calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with vemurafenib compared to the standard of care from a public payer perspective. The CEA indicated that vemurafenib provides a gain of 0.38 life years (1.78 vs. 1.4) for an incremental cost of USD 101,106.62 from the perspective of the main public payer (CNAM). This study revealed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 163,311.40 USD/QALY and 163,911.46 USD/QALY, respectively, from the CNAM and public health facilities' perspectives. Vemurafenib cannot be considered cost-effective in terms of what has normally been considered a reasonable willingness to pay (WTP) in Tunisia. A significant price reduction would be necessary to bring the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to an acceptable level.

Sequencing of Checkpoint or BRAF/MEK Inhibitors on Brain Metastases in Melanoma

BackgroundThe impact of the order of treatment with checkpoint inhibitors or BRAF/MEK inhibitors on the development of brain metastases in patients with metastatic unresectable BRAFV600-mutant melanoma is unknown. The SECOMBIT trial examined the impact of the order of receipt of these treatments in such patients.MethodsIn this three-arm trial, we reviewed patients without brain metastases who received the BRAF/MEK inhibitors encorafenib and binimetinib until they had progressive disease followed by the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab (arm A); or treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by encorafenib and binimetinib (arm B); or treatment with encorafenib and binimetinib for 8 weeks followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by retreatment with encorafenib arm binimetinib (arm C).ResultsBrain metastases were discovered during the trial in 23/69 patients in arm A, 11/69 in arm B, and 9/68 in arm C. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the 60-month brain metastases–free survival rates were 56% for arm A, 80% for arm B (hazard ratio [HR] vs. A: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.58), and 85% for arm C (HR vs. A: 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.76).ConclusionsIn patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, the treatment sequence of immune checkpoint inhibition followed by BRAF/MEK inhibitors was associated with longer periods of new brain metastases–free survival than the reverse sequence. A regimen in which immune checkpoint inhibition was sandwiched between BRAF/MEK inhibition also appeared to be protective against brain metastases. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02631447.)

The Evaluation of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and BRAF/MEK Inhibitors in Different Therapy Lines for Metastatic Melanoma: A Retrospective Study.

Background: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) combination therapy is highly effective in treating advanced melanoma, but serious immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are prevalent. The overall response rate (ORR) of the BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) combination therapy for BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma surpasses that of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, the OS and PFS of BRAFi/MEKi combination therapy are inferior to those of ICIs. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 22 melanoma patients treated with nivo/ipi therapy and 13 patients treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib (enco/bini) between November 2018 and July 2023. Results: The ORR of nivo/ipi for metastatic melanoma patients was significantly higher in the first-line cohort [60.0% (95% CI: 31.2-83.3%)] than in the second-line or beyond cohort [8.3% (95% CI: 0-37.5%)], whereas the ORR of enco/bini was comparable between the first-line cohort [75.0% (95% CI: 28.9-96.6%)] and the second-line or beyond cohort [77.8% (95% CI: 44.3-94.7%)]. The median PFS of nivo/ipi significantly improved in the first-line cohort [7.7 months (95% CI: 2.0-11.9)] compared to the second-line or beyond cohort [2.3 months (95% CI: 0.5-6.0)] (p = 0.0109). In addition to efficacy, the incidence of grade 3 or greater AEs was comparable in the first-line and second-line or beyond cohorts. Conclusions: Although our present data are based on a small number of cases, they suggest that nivo/ipi should be administered as the first-line therapy for the treatment of BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, rather than enco/bini, aligning with findings from previous clinical trials.

Advancements and Challenges in Personalized Therapy for BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: A Comprehensive Review.

Over the past several decades, advancements in the treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma have led to the development of BRAF inhibitors, BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations, anti-PD-1 therapy, and anti-CTLA4 therapy. Although these therapies have shown substantial efficacy in clinical trials, their sustained effectiveness is often challenged by the tumor microenvironment, which is a highly heterogeneous and complex milieu of immunosuppressive cells that affect tumor progression. The era of personalized medicine holds substantial promise for the tailoring of treatments to individual genetic profiles. However, tumor heterogeneity and immune evasion mechanisms contribute to the resistance to immunotherapy. Despite these challenges, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy, as exemplified by lifileucel, has demonstrated notable efficacy against BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Additionally, early response biomarkers, such as COX-2 and MMP2, along with FDG-PET imaging, offer the potential to improve personalized immunotherapy by predicting patient responses and determining the optimal treatment duration. Future efforts should focus on reducing the T-cell harvesting periods and costs associated with TIL therapy to enhance efficiency and accessibility.

In vivo vulnerabilities to GPX4 and HDAC inhibitors in drug-persistent versus drug-resistant BRAFV600E lung adenocarcinoma

The current targeted therapy for BRAFV600E-mutant lung cancer consists of a dual blockade of RAF/MEK kinases often combining dabrafenib/trametinib (D/T). This regimen extends survival when compared to single-agent treatments, but disease progression is unavoidable. By using whole-genome CRISPR screening and RNA sequencing, we characterize the vulnerabilities of both persister and D/T-resistant cellular models. Oxidative stress together with concomitant induction of antioxidant responses is boosted by D/T treatment. However, the nature of the oxidative damage, the choice of redox detoxification systems, and the resulting therapeutic vulnerabilities display stage-specific differences. Persister cells suffer from lipid peroxidation and are sensitive to ferroptosis upon GPX4 inhibition invivo. Biomarkers of lipid peroxidation are detected in clinical samples following D/T treatment. Acquired alterations leading to mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) reactivation enhance cystine transport to boost GPX4-independent antioxidant responses. Similarly to BRAFV600E-mutant melanoma, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors decrease D/T-resistant cell viability and extend therapeutic response invivo.

Real-world use and outcomes of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for adjuvant treatment of BRAF -mutated melanoma patients in the United States.

Using a customized, harmonized US electronic health record database, real-world prescription patterns of first-line adjuvant immunotherapy and targeted therapy were retrospectively assessed for BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Adults with BRAF V600 mutation-positive stage IIIA-D cutaneous melanoma who received first-line adjuvant immunotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or targeted therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib) between 1 January 2014 and 30 August 2020 in the NOBLE database were included. Patients were followed from first-line adjuvant therapy initiation for at least 6 months, until death, progression, follow-up loss, or data cutoff. Primary endpoints were proportion of patients receiving either therapy in first-line and second-line, treatment switching, treatment timing, and status at the end of first-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included discontinuation rates, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). Of 318 patients evaluated, 67.6% received nivolumab, 14.2% pembrolizumab, and 18.2% targeted therapy as first-line adjuvant therapy. Median treatment duration was longest for nivolumab (292 days) and shortest for targeted therapy (115 days). Reason for discontinuation was recorded for 195 of 274 patients who discontinued first-line therapy; most common reasons were treatment completion and treatment-related toxicity [87/158 (55.0%) and 29/158 (18.4%), respectively, in immunotherapy-treated patients; 9/37 (24.3%) and 21/37 (56.8%) in targeted therapy-treated patients]. Median RFS and OS for targeted therapy and nivolumab were not reached and were 34.6 and 38.1 months, respectively, for pembrolizumab. These results inform on prescription preferences and clinical outcomes for BRAF V600-mutated melanoma patients in the first-line adjuvant setting.

Encorafenib and binimetinib followed by radiotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma and brain metastases (E-BRAIN/GEM1802 phase II study).

Encorafenib plus binimetinib (EB) is a standard-of-care treatment for advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. We assessed the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma and brain metastasis (BM) and explored if radiotherapy improves the duration of response. E-BRAIN/GEM1802 was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial that enrolled patients with melanoma BRAFV600-mutant and BM. Patients received encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg BID, and those who achieved a partial response or stable disease at first tumor assessment were offered radiotherapy. Treatment continued until progression. Primary endpoint was intracranial response rate (icRR) after 2 months of EB, establishing a futility threshold of 60%. The study included 25 patients with no BM symptoms and 23 patients with BM symptoms regardless of using corticosteroids. Among them, 31 patients (64.6%) received sequential radiotherapy. After 2 months, icRR was 70.8% (95% CI: 55.9-83.1); 10.4% complete response. Median intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 8.5 (95% CI: 6.4-11.8) and 15.9 (95% CI: 10.7-21.4) months, respectively (8.3 months for icPFS and 13.9 months OS for patients receiving RDT). Most common grades 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased (10.4%). Encorafenib plus binimetinib showed promising clinical benefit in terms of icRR, and tolerable safety profile with low frequency of high-grade TRAEs, in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma and BM, including those with symptoms and need for steroids. Sequential radiotherapy is feasible but it does not seem to prolong response.

Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAFV600-mutant resectable melanoma: the randomized phase 2 NeoTrio trial

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF-targeted therapy each improve survival in melanoma. Immune changes early during targeted therapy suggest the mechanisms of each drug class could work synergistically. In the non-comparative, randomized, phase 2 NeoTrio trial, we investigated whether targeted therapy could boost the proportion of patients achieving long-term recurrence-free survival with neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable stage III BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. Sixty patients (42% females) were randomized to pembrolizumab alone (n = 20), sequential therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib followed by pembrolizumab; n = 20) or concurrent (triple) therapy (n = 20), followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy. The primary outcome was pathological response; secondary outcomes included radiographic response, recurrence-free survival, overall survival, surgical outcomes, peripheral blood and tumor analyses and safety. The pathological response rate was 55% (11/20; including six pathological complete responses (pCRs)) with pembrolizumab, 50% (10/20; three pCRs) with sequential therapy and 80% (16/20; ten pCRs) with concurrent therapy, which met the primary outcome in each arm. Treatment-related adverse events affected 75–100% of patients during neoadjuvant treatment, with seven early discontinuations (all in the concurrent arm). At 2 years, event-free survival was 60% with pembrolizumab, 80% with sequential therapy and 71% with concurrent therapy. Recurrences after major pathological response were more common in the targeted therapy arms, suggesting a reduction in response ‘quality’ when targeted therapy is added to neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Risking the curative potential of immunotherapy in melanoma cannot be justified. Pending longer follow-up, we suggest that immunotherapy and targeted therapy should not be combined in the neoadjuvant setting for melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02858921.