Incidence, course, and management of toxicities associated with cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in the coBRIM study

Cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib in unresectable or metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib (EncoBini) as compared to other targeted double combination therapies, namely dabrafenib with trametinib (DabraTrame) and vemurafenib with cobimetinib (VemuCobi), for the treatment of BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma (MM) from the French payer perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed considering a lifetime horizon. The model structure simulated the clinical pathway of patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM. Clinical effectiveness and safety inputs were sourced from the COLUMBUS trial, a network meta-analysis and published literature. Costs, resource use, and the quality of life inputs were obtained from the literature and appropriate French sources.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, EncoBini was associated, on average, with reduced costs and increased quality adjusted life years (QALYs), dominating both targeted double combination therapies. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €90,000 per QALY, the probability of EncoBini being cost-effective against either comparator remained above 80%. The most influential model parameters were the hazard ratios for the overall survival of EncoBini vs DabraTrame and VemuCobi, the pre- and post-progression utility values, as well as treatment dosages and the relative dose intensity of all interventions.

CONCLUSION

EncoBini is associated with reduced costs and increased QALYs, dominating other targeted double combination therapies (DabraTrame, VemuCobi) for patients with BRAF V600-mutant MM in France. EncoBini is a highly cost-effective intervention in MM.

Effectiveness, safety and utilization of cobimetinib and vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600 mutant melanoma with and without cerebral metastasis under real-world conditions in Germany: the non-interventional study coveNIS

Cobimetinib/vemurafenib combination therapy is approved for treatment of adults with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600 mutated malignant melanoma (mM). The non-interventional post-authorisation safety study coveNIS collected real-world data on cobimetinib/vemurafenib treatment focussing on overall survival (OS), safety and utilization. MM patients with brain metastases are usually excluded from clinical studies. coveNIS observed 2 cohorts: mM patients without (Cohort A) and with cerebral metastases (Cohort B), aiming to close the data gap for the latter population. A direct comparison of the 2 cohorts was not intended. The primary effectiveness objective was OS; the safety objective was the incidence of all and of serious adverse events (AEs). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), time to development of cerebral metastasis (Cohort A) and time to central nervous system relapse (Cohort B). All statistical analyses were descriptive. Between 2017 and 2021, 95 patients were included (Cohort A: 54, Cohort B: 41 patients) at 32 sites in Germany. Median OS was 21.6 months in Cohort A, 7.4 months in Cohort B. Median PFS was 6.9 months in Cohort A, 5.2 months in Cohort B. The proportion of patients experiencing any AEs was 83.3% (Cohort A) and 87.8% (Cohort B). The two most common AEs in Cohort A were 'diarrhoea' (37%), 'vomiting' (20.4%) and 'pyrexia' (20.4%); in Cohort B 'diarrhoea' (36.6%) and 'fatigue' (22%). In conclusion, the OS rates in Cohort A and Cohort B of coveNIS are in line with the OS data from other trials with BRAF/MEK inhibitors for mM. No new safety signals were observed.

Challenges in posterior uveitis-tips and tricks for the retina specialist

PURPOSE

Posterior uveitis is a common chorioretinal pathology affecting all ages worldwide and is a frequent reason for referral to the retina clinic. The spectrum of etiologies for uveitis is very broad and includes infectious and auto-immune diseases. Inflammation can be confined to the eye or may be a part of systemic disease. A useful outline is therefore proposed to aid in the correct diagnosis of these challenging entities. The situation is further complicated by the fact that many neoplastic conditions resemble features of posterior uveitis; they are known as "masqueraders of uveitis". Here, we summarize different posterior uveitides that present with rare findings, along with masqueraders that can be difficult to distinguish. These conditions pose a diagnostic dilemma resulting in delay in treatment because of diagnostic uncertainty.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed on the MEDLINE/PUBMED, EBSCO and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from January 1985 to January 2022 for original studies and reviews of predetermined diagnoses that include posterior uveitic entities, panuveitis and masquerade syndromes.

RESULTS

We described conditions that can present as mimickers of posterior uveitis (i.e., immune check-points inhibitors and Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada-like uveitis; leukemia and lymphoma associated posterior uveitis), inflammatory conditions that present as mimickers of retinal diseases (i.e., Purtscher-like retinopathy as a presentation of systemic lupus erythematosus; central serous chorioretinopathy masquerading inflammatory exudative retinal detachment), and uveitic conditions with rare and diagnostically challenging etiologies (i.e., paradoxical inflammatory effects of anti-TNF-α; post vaccination uveitis; ocular inflammation after intravitreal injection of antiangiogenic drugs).

CONCLUSION

This review of unique posterior uveitis cases highlights the overlapping features of posterior uveitis (paradoxical inflammatory effects of anti -TNF α and uveitis; Purtscher-like retinopathy as a presentation of systemic lupus erythematosus, …) and the nature of retinal conditions (ischemic ocular syndrome, or central retinal vein occlusion, amyloidosis, inherited conditions like retinitis pigmentosa, autosomal dominant neovascular inflammatory vitreoretinopathy (ADNIV), etc.…) that may mimic them is represented. Careful review of past uveitis history, current medications and recent vaccinations, detailed examination of signs of past or present inflammation, eventually genetic testing and/ or multimodal retinal imaging (like fluorescein angiography, EDI-OCT, OCT-angiography for lupus Purtscher-like retinopathy evaluation, or ICG for central serous retinopathy, or retinal amyloid angiopathy) may aid in correct diagnosis.

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.

Long-Term Real-World Outcomes and Safety of Vemurafenib and Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib Therapy in Patients with BRAF-Mutated Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Combined treatment with BRAFi and/or MEK inhibitors (MEKi) improves outcomes in advanced melanoma patients in comparison with monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to report real-world treatment efficacy and safety of vemurafenib (V) and vemurafenib + cobimetinib (V + C) from 10 years of practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 275 consecutive patients with unresectable or metastatic BRAF mutated melanoma started first-line V or V + C treatment between 1 October 2013 and 31 December 2020. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Log-rank and Chi-square tests were used for comparison between groups.

RESULTS

The estimated median overall survival (mOS) was 10.3 months in the V group, and 12.3 months in the V + C group (p = 0.0005; HR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.2-2.1), although the latter group of patients had lactate dehydrogenase elevated numerically more often. Estimated median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.5 months in the V group, and 8.3 months in the V + C group (p = 0.0002; HR = 1.62, 95% CI 1.3-2.1). Complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease as best responses were recorded in the V/V + C groups in 7%/10%, 52%/46%, 26%/28%, and 15%/16% of patients, respectively. The numbers of patients with any grade of adverse effects were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed significant improvement in the mOS and mPFS of unresectable and/or metastatic BRAF mutated-melanoma patients treated outside clinical trials with V + C as compared with V, with no major increase in toxicity for the combination.

Ocular adverse events associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapy: a pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis of the FDA adverse event reporting system

BACKGROUND

BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapy have significantly improved the outcome of several BRAF-mutation tumors, but it also confers the risk of drug-induced ocular adverse events (oAEs). However, very few studies focused on this risk.

METHODS

The United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data from Quarter 1-2011 to Quarter 2-2022 were searched to detect signs of oAEs of three marketed BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies: vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (V + C), dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T), and encorafenib plus binimetinib (E + B). Disproportionality analyses were performed by calculating the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), χ2 (chi-square), and reporting odds ratios (RORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A series of oAEs were identified, including 42 preferred terms, which could be classified into 8 aspects. In addition to previously reported oAEs, several unexpected oAE signals were detected. Moreover, differences in oAE profiles were found among three combination therapies (V + C, D + T, and E + B).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support an association between several oAEs and BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies, including several new oAEs. In addition, oAEs profiles may vary across the treatment regimens. Further studies are needed to better quantify these oAEs.

BRAF and MEK Inhibitors and Their Toxicities: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis summarizes the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AE) of BRAFi and MEKi.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline/PubMed was conducted to identify suitable articles published in English up to 31 December 2021. The primary outcomes were profiles for all-grade and grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs, and the analysis of single side effects belonging to both categories.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of treatment-related all-grade Aes was 99% for Encorafenib (95% CI: 0.97-1.00) and 97% for Trametinib (95% CI: 0.92-0.99; I² = 66%) and Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.94-0.99; I² = 0%). In combined therapies, the rate was 98% for both Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (95% CI: 0.96-0.99; I² = 77%) and Encorafenib + Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.96-1.00). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 69% of cases for Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.50-0.84; I² = 71%), 68% for Encorafenib (95% CI: 0.61-0.74), and 72% for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (95% CI: 0.65-0.79; I² = 84%). The most common grade 1-2 AEs were pyrexia (43%) and fatigue (28%) for Dabrafenib + Trametinib and diarrhea for both Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (52%) and Encorafenib + Binimetinib (34%). The most common AEs of grade 3 or higher were pyrexia, rash, and hypertension for Dabrafenib + Trametinib (6%), rash and hypertension for Encorafenib + Binimetinib (6%), and increased AST and ALT for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides comprehensive data on treatment-related adverse events of BRAFi and MEKi combination therapies, showing related toxicity profiles to offer a helpful tool for clinicians in the choice of therapy.

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

PURPOSE

Combination treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors has demonstrated benefits on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and is a standard of care for the treatment of advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year update from the COLUMBUS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01909453).

METHODS

Patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, untreated or progressed after first-line immunotherapy, were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily. An updated analysis was conducted 65 months after the last patient was randomly assigned.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-seven patients were randomly assigned: 192 to encorafenib plus binimetinib, 191 to vemurafenib, and 194 to encorafenib. The 5-year PFS and OS rates with encorafenib plus binimetinib were 23% and 35% overall and 31% and 45% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. In comparison, the 5-year PFS and OS rates with vemurafenib were 10% and 21% overall and 12% and 28% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels, respectively. The median duration of response with encorafenib plus binimetinib was 18.6 months, with disease control achieved in 92.2% of patients. In comparison, the median duration of response with vemurafenib was 12.3 months, with disease control achieved in 81.2% of patients. Long-term follow-up showed no new safety concerns, and results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at COLUMBUS dashboard.

CONCLUSION

In this 5-year update of part 1 of the COLUMBUS trial, encorafenib plus binimetinib treatment demonstrated continued long-term benefits and a consistent safety profile in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma.

Targeting the epigenome in malignant melanoma: Facts, challenges and therapeutic promises

Malignant melanoma is the most lethal type of skin cancer with high rates of mortality. Although current treatment options provide a short-clinical benefit, acquired-drug resistance highlights the low 5-year survival rate among patients with advanced stage of the disease. In parallel, the involvement of an aberrant epigenetic landscape, (e.g., alterations in DNA methylation patterns, histone modifications marks and expression of non-coding RNAs), in addition to the genetic background, has been also associated with the onset and progression of melanoma. In this review article, we report on current therapeutic options in melanoma treatment with a focus on distinct epigenetic alterations and how their reversal, by specific drug compounds, can restore a normal phenotype. In particular, we concentrate on how single and/or combinatorial therapeutic approaches have utilized epigenetic drug compounds in being effective against malignant melanoma. Finally, the role of deregulated epigenetic mechanisms in promoting drug resistance to targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors is presented leading to the development of newly synthesized and/or improved drug compounds capable of targeting the epigenome of malignant melanoma.

Comparative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for BRAF-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Results from a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane published until November 2020. Screening used prespecified eligibility criteria. Following a transitivity assessment across included studies, Bayesian NMA was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 43 publications reporting 15 targeted therapy trials and 42 reporting 18 immunotherapy trials were retained from the SLR and considered for the NMA. Due to substantial between-study heterogeneity with immunotherapy trials, the analysis considered a network restricted to targeted therapies. Among combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib was superior to dabrafenib + trametinib for overall response rate (OR = 1.86; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 1.10, 3.17), superior to vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 0.51; 95 % CrI 0.29, 0.91) and fewer discontinuations due to AEs (OR = 0.45; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.96), and superior to atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer SAEs (OR = 0.41; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.82). Atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib and encorafenib + binimetinib were generally comparable for efficacy endpoints. Among double combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib showed high probabilities of being better for all efficacy and safety endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA confirms that combination therapies are more efficacious than monotherapies. Encorafenib + binimetinib has a favourable efficacy profile compared to other double combination therapies and a favourable safety profile compared to both double and triple combination therapies.

Health-related quality of life in stage III-IV melanoma treated with targeted therapy or immunotherapy: A systematic review on the adequacy of reporting and clinical issues in phase III randomized controlled trials

Cutaneous melanoma represents around over 90% of all melanoma. With more effective treatments able to extend patients' survival, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly becoming an important endpoint in cancer clinical trials. They are often secondary outcomes measured in phase III randomized controlled trials and their implementation, collection, analysis, and reporting can be challenging methodologically. For these reasons, an increasing number of international recommendations introduced the standards regarding the conduct of HRQOL. In this systematic review, we appraise the adequacy of HRQOL reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of stage III-IV cutaneous melanoma and the clinical issues of immunotherapy and small-molecular-targeted therapy on HRQOL. Our search strategy totally got 55 articles, and only 13 studies met all inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that most treatments did not yield significant improvements in HRQOL but kept baseline levels, accompanied by prolonged survival and acceptable toxicity. Except for some existing limitations, reporting of HRQOL has made encouraging progress during the period covered by our search, but some aspects still need further optimization.

European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 1: Diagnostics: Update 2022

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is potentially the most dangerous form of skin tumor and causes 90% of skin cancer mortality. A unique collaboration of multi-disciplinary experts from the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed to make recommendations on CM diagnosis and treatment, based on systematic literature reviews and the experts' experience. The diagnosis of melanoma can be made clinically and shall always be confirmed with dermatoscopy. If a melanoma is suspected, a histopathological examination is always required. Sequential digital dermatoscopy and full body photography can be used in high-risk patients to improve the detection of early melanoma. Where available, confocal reflectance microscopy can also improve clinical diagnosis in special cases. Melanoma shall be classified according to the 8th version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. Thin melanomas up to 0.8 mm tumor thickness do not require further imaging diagnostics. From stage IB onwards, examinations with lymph node sonography are recommended, but no further imaging examinations. From stage IIC onwards whole-body examinations with computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography CT (PET-CT) in combination with brain magnetic resonance imaging are recommended. From stage III and higher, mutation testing is recommended, particularly for BRAF V600 mutation. It is important to provide a structured follow-up to detect relapses and secondary primary melanomas as early as possible. There is no evidence to define the frequency and extent of examinations. A stage-based follow-up scheme is proposed which, according to the experience of the guideline group, covers the optimal requirements, but further studies may be considered. This guideline is valid until the end of 2024.

Acneiform eruptions with combination targeted cancer therapy in colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) can be used with pathway inhibitors, including mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase inhibitors (MEKIs), BRAF inhibitors (BRAFIs), and checkpoint inhibitors such as programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) to treat colorectal cancer. These can precipitate treatment-resistant acneiform eruptions, prompting dose modification or discontinuation. Predicting the likelihood of severe rash development and crafting effective treatments may promote adherence to life-saving chemotherapy.

METHODS

An Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective chart review of patients with colorectal cancer treated with EGFRI or MEKI in combination with HER2, BRAF, PI3K, or checkpoint inhibitors between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020, was performed. Surrogates for rash severity were investigated, including lower extremity involvement, utilization of oral steroids or retinoids, dose modification, and incidence of superinfection.

RESULTS

Of 122 patients treated with combination therapy, 105 developed a rash, and 87 developed an acneiform eruption. Common combinations included MEKI/PD-LI, EGFRI/MEKI, and MEKI/PD-1I. Patients treated with EGFRI/MEKI developed the most severe rashes (p = 0.02). Lower extremity involvement was more frequent with EGFRI/MEKI compared to alternative combinations (p = 0.05). Drug holiday correlated with all rash severity surrogates, including rash grade, lower extremity involvement, oral steroid or retinoid use, and incidence of superinfection. Use of oral steroids or retinoids was associated with development of superinfection (p = 0.002). Prophylactic tetracycline use did not impact rash severity or rash incidence.

CONCLUSION

This is the first descriptive analysis to characterize acneiform eruptions for patients with colorectal cancer on combination cancer therapy. Approximately 85% of patients developed a cutaneous toxicity with what appears to be synergistic effects of EGFRI and MEKI combination therapy causing the most severe eruptions. Superinfection rate correlated to systemic therapy use beyond oral tetracyclines. Further investigation into the utility of prophylactic oral tetracyclines in this population is needed.

Acceptability of Drugs in the Treatment of Unresectable/Metastatic BRAF V600-Mutant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Although many novel regimens have entered the treatment paradigm for unresectable/metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma, there is still a lack of head-to-head comparison in terms of security. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the risk of adverse events (AEs) across different treatments and to provide an acceptability ranking for patients.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in Embase, PubMed, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Clinical Trials.gov with a time frame from database inception to December 24, 2021. We retrieved evidence on the cumulative incidence of any-grade AEs means grades 1-5 AEs (regardless of severity) and severe AEs based on the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrI).

Results

Twelve publications and thirteen treatments enrolling 5,803 patients were included. For any-grade AEs, the acceptability of combined dabrafenib and trametinib is superior to the combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (RR: 0.94; Crl: 0.89, 0.98). Furthermore, nivolumab combined with ipilimumab increases any-grade AEs than single-agent ipilimumab (RR: 0.90; Crl: 0.83, 0.96) or nivolumab (RR: 0.90; Crl: 0.84, 0.97). For severe AEs, dabrafenib has the best acceptability than single-agent vemurafenib (RR: 0.66; Crl: 0.50, 0.87) or encorafenib (RR: 0.64; Crl: 0.43, 0.94). In addition, ipilimumab (SUCRA: 0.87) ranks first in the acceptability for any-grade AEs, and nivolumab (SUCRA: 0.95) ranks first in the acceptability for severe AEs. The ranking of the combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (SUCRA: 0.66) is superior to encorafenib in combination with binimetinib (SUCRA: 0.39) and combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib (SUCRA: 0.18).

Conclusions

We identified the lowest AE risk treatment options for BRAF V600-mutant melanoma patients. In general, immunotherapy (ipilimumab or nivolumab) has better acceptability than most targeted therapies, and triplet therapies are related with the worst acceptability. Moreover, single-agent dabrafenib can be used as the first choice in monotherapy, and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib is the preferred combination therapy. Overall, the combination of immunotherapy drugs increases any-grade and severe AEs than a single agent, whereas the condition of targeted therapy drugs cannot be simply generalized. Therefore, this information can facilitate evidence-based decision-making and support optimizing treatment and outcomes in clinical practice.

First-line Advanced Cutaneous Melanoma Treatments: Where Do We Stand?

Cutaneous melanoma has always been a dreaded diagnosis because of its high mortality rate and its proclivity for invasiveness and metastasis. Historically, advanced melanoma treatment has been limited to chemotherapy and nonspecific immunotherapy agents that display poor curative potential and high toxicity. However, during the last decade, the evolving understanding of the mutational burden of melanoma and immune system evasion mechanisms has led to the development of targeted therapy and specific immunotherapy agents that have transformed the landscape of advanced melanoma treatment. Despite the considerable strides in understanding the clinical implications of these agents, there is a scarcity of randomized clinical trials that directly compare the efficacy of the aforementioned agents; hence, there are no clear preferences among the available first-line options. In addition, the introduction of these agents was associated with a variety of dermatologic adverse events, some of which have shown a detrimental effect on the continuity of treatment. This holds especially true in light of the current fragmentation of care provided by the managing health care professionals. In this study, we attempt to summarize the current understanding of first-line treatments. In addition, the paper describes the indirect comparative evidence that aids in bridging the gap in the literature. Furthermore, this paper sheds light on the impact of the scarcity of dermatology specialist input in the management of dermatologic adverse events associated with advanced melanoma treatment. It also looks into the potential avenues where dermatologic input can bridge the gap in the care provided by oncologists, thus standardizing the care provided to patients with melanoma presenting with dermatologic adverse events.

Adjuvant Therapy for Cutaneous Melanoma

This article presents the current data supporting adjuvant therapy for patients with cutaneous melanoma. With the recent development of novel immunotherapy agents as well as targeted therapy, there are strong data to support the use of these therapies in patients at high risk of developing recurrent or metastatic disease.

Tolerance and Effectiveness of Targeted Therapies in Aged Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

Simple Summary

A majority of melanoma occurs in people over 65 years. BRAF and MEK inhibitors are standard of care for BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma. The aim of the study was to explore tolerability of targeted therapy in a cohort of patients extracted from a biobank. Patients treated by BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors were included in two groups (<65 or >65 years) and analyzed for tolerance and efficacy. The cohort included 353 patients: 231 < 65 years and 122 > 65. A total of 80% had at least one adverse effect mainly skin, general, and gastrointestinal disorders. No statistical difference was observed for severe adverse events, adverse events grades, dose modifications, and interruptions in the two groups. Median overall survival was 20.3 and 16.3 months, respectively. This study shows that tolerance of targeted therapy is as good in older patients as in younger with a similar efficacy. There is no argument against using these treatments in elderly people.

Abstract

Purpose: Melanoma’s incidence is increasing, and elderly people could be significantly impacted since the majority occurs in people over 65 years of age. Combined BRAF and MEK targeted therapies (TT) are current standard regimen for BRAF mutated metastatic melanoma (MM). Except for subgroups of pivotal trials, little data are available for TT in this population. Materials and Methods: Outcomes were explored in real life patients from MelBase, a French multicentric biobank dedicated to the prospective follow-up of unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Patients treated by BRAF TT and/or MEK TT combined or not, were included from 2013 to 2017 in 2 groups: group 1 ≤ 65-year-old (yo), group 2 > 65 yo, analyzed for tolerance and efficacy. Results: 353 patients were included: 231 in group 1, 122 in group 2. Median follow-up was 12 months (M). Median time of treatment was 6.9 M. A total of 80% had at least one Adverse Effect (AE). Most frequent AE (all grades) were mainly skin and subcutaneous, general, and gastrointestinal disorders. A total of 31% of AE were grade 3–4: 28% in group 1 and 39% in group 2 (p = 0.05). No differences were observed in all AE grades proportion, dose modifications, interruptions, and discontinuations. For each group, median overall survival was 20.3 M (CI 95%: 15.5–27.9) and 16.3 M (CI: 14.5–26.9), respectively (p = 0.8). Median progression free survival was 7.8 M (6.4–9.9) and 7.7 M (CI: 5.8–11.3) (p = 0.4). Objective response rate was 59% and 50% (p = 0.6). Conclusion: This study on a large multicentric cohort is the first to assess that TT is well tolerated in elderly BRAF-mutated patients such as in patients younger than 65. Efficacy was similar between groups with outcomes reaching those from pivotal studies. There is thus no argument against using TT in elderly people, although an onco-geriatric opinion is welcome for the most vulnerable.

First line treatment of BRAF mutated advanced melanoma: Does one size fit all?

In the last decade, immunotherapy and target therapy have revolutionized the prognosis of patients with BRAF-V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. To date, three different combinations of BRAF/MEK inhibitors have been approved for this population, showing comparable efficacy and unique toxicity profiles. Several immune-checkpoint inhibitors, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, are also available options for untreated metastatic melanoma patients. A novel approach has emerged by combining immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents, based on preclinical hints of synergy, prompting clinical results from large randomized trials. Specifically, the triplet of atezolizumab, vemurafenib and cobimetinib has been recently approved by FDA for patients with untreated BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. With a wide variety of available treatment options in this setting, it is paramount to establish criteria to select the most effective and safe frontline tailored approaches, for each patient. Results from ongoing studies are awaited, to maximise the benefits in survival outcomes and quality of life for patients, balancing adverse events and clinical benefit. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current landscape of standard and experimental treatment strategies for the first line treatment of patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma and discuss the best patient-centered tailored strategies in the first-line setting.

Retinal toxicities of systemic anticancer drugs

Newer anticancer drugs have revolutionized cancer treatment in the last decade, but conventional chemotherapy still occupies a central position in many cancers, with combination therapy and newer methods of delivery increasing their efficacy while minimizing toxicities. We discuss the retinal toxicities of anticancer drugs with an emphasis on the mechanism of toxicity. Uveitis is seen with the use of v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B editing anticancer inhibitors as well as immunotherapy. Most of the cases are mild with only anterior uveitis, but severe cases of posterior uveitis, panuveitis, and Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada-like disease may also occur. In the retina, a transient neurosensory detachment is observed in almost all patients on mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors. Microvasculopathy is often seen with interferon α, but vascular occlusion is a more serious toxicity caused by interferon α and MEK inhibitors. Crystalline retinopathy with or without macular edema may occur with tamoxifen; however, even asymptomatic patients may develop cavitatory spaces seen on optical coherence tomography. A unique macular edema with angiographic silence is characteristic of taxanes. Delayed dark adaptation has been observed with fenretinide. Interestingly, this drug is finding potential application in Stargardt disease and age-related macular degeneration.

Early Exanthema Upon Vemurafenib Plus Cobimetinib Is Associated With a Favorable Treatment Outcome in Metastatic Melanoma: A Retrospective Multicenter DeCOG Study

Background

The combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has become standard of care in the treatment of metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Clinical factors for an early prediction of tumor response are rare. The present study investigated the association between the development of an early exanthema induced by vemurafenib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and therapy outcome.

Methods

This multicenter retrospective study included patients with BRAF V600-mutated irresectable AJCC-v8 stage IIIC/D to IV metastatic melanoma who received treatment with vemurafenib (VEM) or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (COBIVEM). The development of an early exanthema within six weeks after therapy start and its grading according to CTCAEv4.0 criteria was correlated to therapy outcome in terms of best overall response, progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 422 patients from 16 centers were included (VEM, n=299; COBIVEM, n=123). 20.4% of VEM and 43.1% of COBIVEM patients developed an early exanthema. In the VEM cohort, objective responders (CR/PR) more frequently presented with an early exanthema than non-responders (SD/PD); 59.0% versus 38.7%; p=0.0027. However, median PFS and OS did not differ between VEM patients with or without an early exanthema (PFS, 6.9 versus 6.0 months, p=0.65; OS, 11.0 versus 12.4 months, p=0.69). In the COBIVEM cohort, 66.0% of objective responders had an early exanthema compared to 54.3% of non-responders (p=0.031). Median survival times were significantly longer for patients who developed an early exanthema compared to patients who did not (PFS, 9.7 versus 5.6 months, p=0.013; OS, not reached versus 11.6 months, p=0.0061). COBIVEM patients with a mild early exanthema (CTCAEv4.0 grade 1-2) had a superior survival outcome as compared to COBIVEM patients with a severe (CTCAEv4.0 grade 3-4) or non early exanthema, respectively (p=0.047). This might be caused by the fact that 23.6% of patients with severe exanthema underwent a dose reduction or discontinuation of COBIVEM compared to only 8.9% of patients with mild exanthema.

Conclusions

The development of an early exanthema within 6 weeks after treatment start indicates a favorable therapy outcome upon vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Patients presenting with an early exanthema should therefore be treated with adequate supportive measures to provide that patients can stay on treatment.

[Management of toxicities of BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors in advanced melanoma]

Major therapeutic advances have been made recently in the treatment of metastatic melanoma, due to the development of targeted therapies, namely BRAF and MEK inhibitors, in patients with BRAF V600 mutation. Combinations of vemurafenib+cobimetinib, dabrafenib+trametinib, et encorafenib+binimetinib, evaluated in coBRIM, COMBI-d/COMBI-v and COLUMBUS trials respectively have been approved in this indication. Toxicities induced by combination therapies are different from those reported with monotherapies, in terms of frequency and intensity. Physicians who treat melanoma patients thus face news issues relating to prevention, detection and treatment of these adverse events. This paper summarizes tolerance data from the three pivotal trials (coBRIM, COMBI-v and COLUMBUS) and issues recommendations for the specific management of main toxicities, based on experts' opinion. We discuss dermatological, ophthalmological, cardiovascular, digestive, musculoskeletal, renal and general toxicities and propose a timetable for examinations to be performed before and during treatment.

MAPK blockade, toxicities, pathogenesis and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

BRAF/MEK inhibitor has changed the treatment landscape in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma with prolonged overall survival and progression-free survival. Since three treatment combinations exist with similar efficacy therapy decisions are often made based on the side effect profile. Additionally, on-target side effects or class effects have to be properly managed to ensure treatment adherence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sequential treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibition and immunotherapy might increase toxicity with a sepsis-like syndrome and triple therapy with concomitant BRAF/MEK inhibition and anti-PD1/PD-L1 antibody therapy induces severe side effects in the vast majority of patients.

SUMMARY

Toxicity of combination therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors is generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with treatment discontinuation. In case of persisting off-target effects the change to another combination therapy can resolve side effects.

Tumor Type Agnostic Therapy Carrying BRAF Mutation: Case Reports and Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine is based on molecular and genotypic patient characterization to define specific target treatment. BRAF mutation is an oncogenic driver, and the Cancer Genome Atlas has identified BRAF mutations in different cancer types. Tumor type agnostic therapy is based on targeting genomic alterations, regardless of tumor origin. In this context, novel therapeutic agents including BRAF and MEK inhibitors based on the molecular landscape in solid tumors have been investigated. Case presentation, Case 1: The first case is chemotherapy-refractory, BRAF V600E mutated intrahepaticcholangiocarcinoma treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib as third line therapy. In this setting the dual BRAF and MEK inhibition resulted in improved progression-free survival and quality of life; Case 2: The second case shows aBRAF G466A mutated Bellini duct carcinoma (BDC), treated with dabrafenib and trametinib in second line therapy. The disease remained under control for 11 months after the first relapse.

DISCUSSION

In the literature there is strong evidence that melanoma, colorectal cancer, non small cell lung cancer and anaplastic thyroid cancer with BRAF mutations are good targets for BRAF/MEK pathway inhibitors. The VE-BASKET and ROAR basket trials explored the efficacy of vemurafenib and the combination of dabrafenib/trametinib, respectively, in BRAF V600 mutation-positive cancers other than melanoma, papillary thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer and non small cell lung cancer. Within the concept of tumor type agnostic therapy, we decided to treat our BRAF-mutated tumors with the association of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm the emerging importance of molecular tumor profiling for the successful management of cancer, and the potential of BRAF-targeted therapy in the treatment of rare solid tumors with poor prognosis and no clinical benefit from systemic therapies with.

Characterization and management of ERK inhibitor associated dermatologic adverse events: analysis from a nonrandomized trial of ulixertinib for advanced cancers

Background Ulixertinib is the first-in-class ERK1/2 kinase inhibitor with encouraging clinical activity in BRAF- and NRAS-mutant cancers. Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) are common with ulixertinib, so management guidelines like those established for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi)-associated dAEs are needed. Patients and Methods This was an open-label, multicenter, phase I dose escalation and expansion trial of ulixertinib evaluating data from 135 patients with advanced malignancies enrolled between March 2013 and July 2017. Histopathological features, management, and dAEs in 34 patients are also reported. Twice daily oral ulixertinib was administered at 10 to 900 mg in the dose escalation cohort (n = 27) and at 600 mg in 21-day cycles in the expansion cohort (n = 108). Results The incidence of ulixertinib-induced dAEs and combined rash were 79% (107/135) and 76% (102/135). The most common dAEs included acneiform rash (45/135, 33%), maculopapular rash (36/135, 27%), and pruritus (34/135, 25%). Grade 3 dAEs were observed in 19% (25/135) of patients; no grade 4 or 5 dAEs were seen. The presence of at least 1 dAE was associated with stable disease (SD) or partial response (PR) (OR = 3.64, 95% CI 1.52-8.72; P = .003). Acneiform rash was associated with a PR (OR = 10.19, 95% CI 2.67-38.91; P < .001). Conclusion The clinical spectrum of ulixertinib-induced dAEs was similar to EGFR and MEK inhibitors; dAEs may serve as a surrogate marker of tumor response. We propose treatment algorithms for common ERK inhibitor-induced dAEs to maintain patients' quality of life and dose intensity for maximal clinical benefit. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01781429.

Clinical Implications of Acquired BRAF Inhibitors Resistance in Melanoma

Understanding the role of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway-activating mutations in the development and progression of melanoma and their possible use as therapeutic targets has substantially changed the management of this neoplasm, which, until a few years ago, was burdened by severe mortality. However, the presence of numerous intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms of resistance to BRAF inhibitors compromises the treatment responses’ effectiveness and durability. The strategy of overcoming these resistances by combination therapy has proved successful, with the additional benefit of reducing side effects derived from paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway. Furthermore, the use of other highly specific inhibitors, intermittent dosing schedules and the association of combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors are promising new therapeutic strategies. However, numerous issues related to dose, tolerability and administration sequence still need to be clarified, as is to be expected from currently ongoing trials. In this review, we describe the clinical results of using BRAF inhibitors in advanced melanoma, with a keen interest in strategies aimed at overcoming resistance.

Comparative Risks of High-Grade Adverse Events Among FDA-Approved Systemic Therapies in Advanced Melanoma: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Head-to-head evidence is lacking in comparative risks of high-grade adverse events (AEs) among different systemic treatment options for advanced melanoma. Methods: An up-to-date systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with advanced melanoma were eligible if at least one intervention was the Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted or immune checkpoint inhibitors. Risks of high-grade AEs were estimated by random-effects Bayesian NMAs, based on relative risks. Surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities was used to assess relative ranking of treatments. The summary incidences were calculated. Results: Twenty-five RCTs (12,925 patients) comparing 10 different systemic treatment options were included. BRAF/MEK had the highest risk of overall high-grade AEs (pooled incidence: 32.11%). BRAF had the highest risk of high-grade arthralgia (0.39%), whereas MEK had the highest risk of high-grade hypertension (2.28%) and nausea (0.37%). Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)/chemo had the highest risk of high-grade diarrhea (1.31%), alanine aminotransferase (0.60%), and aspartate aminotransferase elevation (0.59%). Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/CTLA-4 had the highest risks of high-grade pyrexia (1.14%) and rash (0.94%). Using PD-1 inhibitor alone had the lowest risks of overall high-grade AEs. Conclusions: Different systemic treatment options have varying high-grade AEs in advanced melanoma treatment. Current evidences highlight the important risks of BRAF/MEK, CTLA-4/chemo, and PD-1/CTLA-4.

OCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH MEK INHIBITORS

PURPOSE

Mitogen-activates protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors, particularly MEK inhibitors, have shifted the treatment paradigm for metastatic BRAF-mutant cutaneous melanoma; however, oncologists, ophthalmologists, and patients have noticed different toxicities of variable importance. This review aims to provide an update of the ocular adverse events (OAEs), especially retinal toxicity, associated with the use of MEK inhibitors.

METHODS

We conducted a scientific literature search using the PubMed database up to July 2018 with the terms "MEK inhibitors" with a "review" filter and "MEK inhibitors" with a "clinical trials" filter. Phase I-III experimental studies and reviews were selected. Current principles and techniques for diagnosing and managing MEK inhibitor retinopathy and other OAEs are discussed.

RESULTS

In patients treated with MEK inhibitors, including asymptomatic patients, OAEs occur with an incidence of up to 90%. Mild to severe ophthalmic toxicities are described, including visual disturbances, a 2-line decrease in Snellen visual acuity, dry eye symptoms, ocular adnexal abnormalities, visual field defects, panuveitis, and retinal toxicities, such as different degrees of MEK-associated retinopathy, vascular injury, and retinal vein occlusion.

CONCLUSION

MEK inhibitors can lead to different degrees of retinal, uveal, and adnexal OAE, causing visual disturbances or discomfort. One of the most relevant OAE of MEK therapy is MEK inhibitor-associated retinopathy (MEKAR), which is usually mild, self-limited, and may subside after continuous use of the drug for weeks or months, or discontinuation, thereby restoring the normal visual function of the retina, with some exceptions. Ocular adverse events are often associated with other systemic adverse effects that can modify the dosage of treatment, so the communication with the oncologist is fundamental.

Targeted and immunotherapies in BRAF mutant melanoma: where we stand and what to expect

The therapeutic landscape for melanoma has evolved drastically in the past decade. Currently, immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule inhibitors targeting the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway are the two mainstay therapies for BRAF^V600 mutant advanced melanoma. Although MAPK dependence has been variably demonstrated in melanomas lacking BRAF^V600 mutations, definitive evidence of benefit with MAPK inhibitors has not been demonstrated. Thus, in the BRAF^V600 'wild-type' setting, immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standalone option(s). In the BRAF^V600 mutant setting, there is no definitive evidence prioritizing one therapeutic modality over another. Herein, we review the updated data of the pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials that established the standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced melanoma, as it provides insights into long-term benefit, which is a major factor in therapy selection. We discuss the clinical considerations for choosing between these therapies in the front-line setting and beyond, specifically for patients with BRAF^V600 mutant melanoma based on currently available evidence. We have previously proposed a time-dependent resistance paradigm in which future therapeutic development strategies can be rooted. We also discuss how these Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapeutic modalities are being pursued earlier in the course of disease management, namely in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings. FDA-approved interlesional oncolytic virotherapy in the modern era is also briefly discussed.

Severe gastrointestinal toxicity of MEK inhibitors

Gastrointestinal toxicities of MEK inhibitors in melanoma patients are frequent. In clinical trials, the most common digestive adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea. However, severe toxicities such as colitis and gastrointestinal perforation, some with fatal outcomes, have been reported. These rare but severe adverse events are not well described. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with stage IV and unresectable stage III melanoma treated with a MEK inhibitors at Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, between 1 August 2013 and 15 October 2018. Among 119 patients exposed to MEK inhibitors, 78 were treated with trametinib, 19 with cobimetinib, four with binimetinib, and 18 patients with two different MEK inhibitors at separate times. All grade digestive adverse events were observed in 39 (32.7%) patients. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 6 (5%) patients: 2 (1.7%) developed perforations, 3 (2.5%) had colitis and 1 (0.8%) had grade 4 diarrhoea. These adverse events were all reversible following a permanent discontinuation of the MEK inhibitors, or a temporary interruption followed by resumption at a dose lower than conventional posology. There were no fatal outcomes; however one patient had a permanent ileostomy. The mechanism underlying these toxicities is not well known. Clinicians should be aware of such toxicities.

Emerging serine-threonine kinase inhibitors for treating ovarian cancer

Introduction: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer death, owing to high rates of incurable, recurrent disease after initial treatment. Serine threonine kinases (STKs) have been proposed as potential therapeutic targets in ovarian cancer because of their role in the initiation and progression of cancers. Experience in non-ovarian cancers suggests that STK inhibitors are active against tumors with specific molecular alterations.Areas covered: This review discusses STK inhibitors in active development in phase II/III clinical trials for ovarian cancer. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched to identify STK inhibitor trials for ovarian cancer; active development was confirmed via Pharmaprojects. Available data regarding the efficacy and safety of these compounds are explored.Expert opinion: STK inhibitors currently in development have modest activity as single agents and are unlikely to achieve approval as monotherapy for unselected ovarian cancer patients. Combination trials of STK inhibitors with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapies have suggested an acceptable efficacy/toxicity ratio for certain combinations but confirmatory studies are needed. Carefully designed trials, especially those including somatic molecular analysis, may help identify the subsets of patients most likely to benefit from these therapeutic strategies and determine the role of STK inhibitors in the evolving landscape of precision oncology.

Risk factors for severe rash with use of vemurafenib alone or in combination with cobimetinib for advanced melanoma: pooled analysis of clinical trials

Background

Rash is one of the most common severe adverse events associated with use of vemurafenib for the treatment of melanoma, either as monotherapy or in combination with cobimetinib. The study aimed to identify pre-treatment patient characteristics predictive of developing severe rash with vemurafenib therapy.

Methods

This was a secondary pooled analysis of individual patient data from the BRIM-2, BRIM-3 and coBRIM clinical trials, including all patients treated with vemurafenib alone and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Patient age, sex, performance status, body weight, body mass index, liver function markers and estimated glomerular filtration rate were assessed for association with development of severe (grade 3 or 4) rash using logistic regression.

Results

Of 962 patients treated with vemurafenib, 150 (16%) patients experienced severe rash. Female sex was identified as a significant risk factor for severe rash development (P < 0.001), having a two-fold increased risk compared to males (22% vs 11%, odds ratio [OR] 2.17; 95% CI 1.52 to 3.09). Low body weight was also associated with increased risk of severe rash (P = 0.002), but this association was not significant after adjustment for sex. The association between sex and risk of severe rash was consistent across clinical trials and treatments (vemurafenib monotherapy, vemurafenib plus cobimetinib).

Conclusion

Females had approximately two-fold increased risk of developing severe rash compared to males in clinical trials of vemurafenib alone or in combination with cobimetinib.

RAF and MEK inhibitor therapy in adult patients with brain tumors: a case-based overview and practical management of adverse events

Targeted therapy has gained mainstream attention with notable successes against specific genetic mutations in many cancers. One particular mutation, the BRAF V600E mutation, is present in a small subset of gliomas in adults. Although clinical experience and trial data of RAF-targeted therapy in adults with glioma are lacking at this time, the poor prognosis of adult high-grade glioma has led neuro-oncology practitioners to consider the use of targeted therapy in these patients. In this manuscript, we describe the use of RAF and MEK inhibitors in adults with recurrent glioma. We discuss the utility of these agents, describe their toxicities, and give examples of management strategies. Given the significant toxicities of RAF and MEK inhibitors, along with the long potential duration of treatment, neuro-oncology providers should counsel patients carefully before initiating therapy and monitor them closely while undergoing treatment with RAF-targeted therapy.

Anorexia, Hypertension, Pneumothorax, and Hypothyroidism: Potential Signs of Improved Clinical Outcome Following Apatinib in Advanced Osteosarcoma

Aim

Apatinib, a specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets mainly vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) as well as Ret, c-Kit and c-Src, has been assessed in patients with advanced osteosarcoma (phase II), the primary report of which has been published in PMID 30559126. This sub-study explored the potential signs of Adverse Events (AEs) for apatinib-treated osteosarcoma.

Methods

Participants with advanced osteosarcoma progressing upon chemotherapy received apatinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Toxicities, progression-free survival (PFS), and clinical benefit rate (CBR) following treatment were evaluated.

Results

Of the 41 patients recruited to the study, 37 received treatment and constituted the safety population. At data cut-off (December 30, 2017), median follow-up for safety was 7.37 (IQR, 6.33–11.07) months. The most common grade 3–4 AEs were pneumothorax (16.22%), wound dehiscence (10.81%), proteinuria (8.11%), diarrhea (8.11%), and skin reaction (8.11%). Only hypertension was an independent predictive factor for both PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; P = 0.07) and CBR (P = 0.07). Anorexia was also significantly related to a longer PFS in a Cox regression model (HR, 0.35; P =0.01). For CBR, pneumothorax and hypothyroidism showed more clinical benefit (P = 0.07 and 0.00, respectively).

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that anorexia, hypertension, pneumothorax, and hypothyroidism might be markers for a favorable clinical outcome following apatinib-treated refractory osteosarcoma.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Approved Combination BRAF and MEK Inhibitor Regimens for BRAF-Mutant Melanoma

No head-to-head studies exist comparing BRAF inhibitor/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) combination treatments for BRAF-mutant melanoma. A side-by-side analysis of randomized phase III trials is presented that evaluated dabrafenib/trametinib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib, and encorafenib/binimetinib. The baseline characteristics, efficacy, and safety were compared: COMBI-v (dabrafenib/trametinib versus vemurafenib); coBRIM (vemurafenib/cobimetinib versus vemurafenib); and COLUMBUS (encorafenib/binimetinib versus encorafenib and vemurafenib). Vemurafenib was the control arm in all studies. The data sources included literature databases, European public assessment reports, U.S. Food and Drug Administration review documents, and prescribing information. The baseline characteristics were similar, except for coBRIM, which had a higher proportion of patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were similar across the trials, although numerically higher values were observed with encorafenib/binimetinib. In contrast, the median overall survival (OS) was numerically longer with encorafenib/binimetinib (33.6 months) compared to dabrafenib/trametinib (25.6 months) and vemurafenib/cobimetinib (22.3 months). Among vemurafenib arms, PFS, ORR, and OS were similar, despite variations in the baseline LDH. Each combination displayed a unique safety profile, with higher incidences of pyrexia with dabrafenib/trametinib and photosensitivity reactions with vemurafenib/cobimetinib. This analysis of BRAFi/MEKi combinations for BRAF-mutant melanoma, while limited as not a direct head-to-head clinical trial, highlights the differences in tolerability and efficacy that may be useful for therapeutic decision making.

Adverse events associated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in the COLUMBUS study: incidence, course and management

BACKGROUND

Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated.

RESULTS

The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event.

CONCLUSION

Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38).

The impact of targeted therapies and immunotherapy in melanoma brain metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapies (TT), combination immunotherapy (CMI), and monoimmunotherapy (MI) in combination with radiotherapy (CRI) or not are commonly used in patients with melanoma brain metastases, but studies that directly compare these strategies are lacking. The current meta-analysis aimed to better elucidate their activity and efficacy.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and conference proceedings up to January 2019 was performed to identify trials investigating combination TT, monotargeted TT (mono TT), MI, CMI, and CRI in melanoma brain metastases. The outcomes considered were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the objective response rate (ORR) as evaluated at both intracranial and extracranial sites. Random effects models were used to compare the different therapeutic strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 15 trials were included that provided 1132 patients for analyses. CMI demonstrated a statistically significant better OS compared with MI (P = .03, P = .05, and P = .03, respectively, at 6 months, 18 months, and 24 months) and combination TT (P = .04 and P = .03, respectively, at 18 months and 24 months). CMI demonstrated a statistically significant better PFS compared with combination TT (P < .001 at 12 months and 18 months), MI (P = .02, P < .02, and P = .05, respectively, at 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months), and mono TT (P < .001 at 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months). The intracranial objective response rate was higher with CMI compared with mono TT (P < .001) and MI (P < .001), whereas there was no difference between CMI and combination TT.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current meta-analysis suggested that CMI increases long-term PFS and OS compared with MI and combination TT. Combination TT and CMI are associated with a similar intracranial response rate. The role of systemic therapy in combination with radiotherapy remains to be better elucidated.

Tolerability of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations: adverse event evaluation and management

The inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinases signalling pathway through combined use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAFi+MEKi) represents an established therapeutic option in patients with BRAF-mutated, advanced melanoma. These efficient therapies are well tolerated with mostly moderate and reversible side effects and a discontinuation rate due to adverse events of 11.5%-15.7%. Median duration of therapy ranges between 8.8 and 11.7 months. Based on data from confirmatory trials, safety profiles of three BRAFi+MEKi combinations were reviewed, that is, dabrafenib plus trametinib, vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and encorafenib plus binimetinib. Many adverse events are class effects, such as cutaneous, gastrointestinal, ocular, cardiac and musculoskeletal events; some adverse events are substance associated. Fever (dabrafenib) and photosensitivity (vemurafenib) are the most common and clinically prominent examples. Other adverse events are less frequent and the association to one substance is less strong such as anaemia, facial paresis (encorafenib), neutropenia (dabrafenib), skin rash, QTc prolongation and increased liver function tests (vemurafenib). This narrative review provides recommendations for monitoring, adverse event evaluation and management focusing on the clinically relevant side effects of the three regimens.

Toxicities with targeted therapies after immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma

Over the last decade, melanoma treatment has taken rapid strides with the advent of immunotherapies and targeted agents. With these new agents, there has been a significant improvement in patient survival. However, these new treatment options may sometimes lead to unanticipated side effects that make these treatments challenging to administer and monitor. In preclinical studies, BRAF and MEK inhibitors have shown to modulate tumor microenvironment and potentiate immunotherapies. Therefore, some patients who had prior treatment with immunotherapies can develop immune toxicities even with these targeted agents due to the long half-life of these monoclonal antibodies. Herein, we present our institutional experience with regard to these unexpected toxicities with targeted agents in patients who had previous treatment with immunotherapies. This case series lays out the various side effects along with details of their management, outcomes, and patient response.