Four-month course of adjuvant dabrafenib in patients with surgically resected stage IIIC melanoma characterized by a BRAFV600E/K mutation

Recurrence Patterns for Regionally Metastatic Melanoma Treated in the Era of Adjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the timing and patterns of recurrence for patients with regionally metastatic melanoma on the basis of nodal management and receipt of adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies published between 2010 and 2020 that reported timing and/or patterns of recurrence. We evaluated recurrence-free survival (RFS), location of recurrence, and surveillance strategy on the basis of receipt of adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal management with observation versus completion dissection. We compared differences in patterns of recurrence across studies using RevMan. RFS was evaluated graphically using point estimates and confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Among the 19 publications, there was wide variation in study populations, imaging surveillance regimens, and format of recurrence reporting. Patterns of disease recurrence did not differ between adjuvant and placebo/observation groups. A total of 11 studies reported RFS at variable time intervals, which ranged in adjuvant therapy groups (38-88% at 1 year, 29-67% at 2 years, 33-58% at 3 years, and 34-53% at 5 years) and placebo/observation groups (47-63% at 1 year, 39-47% at 2 years, 33-68% at 3 years, and 57% at 5 years). Anti-PD-1 immune therapy and BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy were superior to placebo at year 1.

DISCUSSION

We found that adjuvant treatment improved RFS but did not alter the patterns of disease recurrence compared with patients managed without adjuvant systemic treatment. Future studies should separately report sites of disease recurrence on the basis of specific adjuvant systemic treatment and surveillance practices to better advise patients about their patterns and risk of recurrence.

The Value of Cell-Free Circulating DNA Profiling in Patients with Skin Diseases

Liquid biopsy, also known as fluid biopsy or fluid-phase biopsy, is the sampling and analysis of the blood, cerebrospinal fluid, saliva, pleural fluid, ascites, and urine. Compared with tissue biopsy, liquid biopsy technology has the advantages of being noninvasive, having strong repeatability, enabling early diagnosis, dynamic monitoring, and overcoming tumor heterogeneity. However, interest in cfDNA and skin diseases has not expanded until recently. In this review, we present an overview of the literature related to the basic biology of cfDNA in the field of dermatology as a biomarker for early diagnosis, monitoring disease activity, predicting progression, and treatment response.

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.

BRAF V600 Mutation Detection in Plasma Cell-Free DNA: NCCTG N0879 (Alliance)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic significance of detectable circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) BRAF V600E/K mutations in patients with advanced melanoma enrolled in a clinical trial without BRAF-targeted therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

BRAF V600E/K mutation status was determined on archived tissue and pretreatment stored plasma from 149 patients with unresectable stage IV melanoma who were enrolled between May 5, 2010 and May 2, 2014 in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group/Alliance N0879 randomized phase 2 clinical trial. Results were reported as presence or absence of cfDNA BRAF V600E/K detection of assay vs tissue. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed for patients with and without detectable BRAF mutation.

RESULTS

In total, 63 of 149 (42.3%) patients had BRAF V600E/K results for tissue and blood, and 20 of 63 (31.7%) patients had tissue-diagnosed mutant BRAF. Of these, 11 of 20 (55.0%) patients had detectable plasma cfDNA BRAF. Among patients with tissue-mutant BRAF V600E/K, PFS and OS were shorter for those with corresponding cfDNA mutations (PFS, 5.8 vs 12.0 months; P=.051; OS, 9.2 vs 27.1 months; P=.054). Our assay demonstrated sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 0.322 to 0.768), specificity of 97.7% (95% CI, 0.932 to 1.000), positive predictive value of 91.7% (95% CI, 0.760 to 1.000), and negative predictive value of 82.4% (95% CI, 0.719 to 0.928).

CONCLUSION

In advanced melanoma, detectable cfDNA BRAF V600E/K mutation is present in about half the patients with stage IV with BRAF-mutant melanoma tumor tissue and appears to confer a poorer prognosis when detectable. Given the poorer prognosis, cfDNA can be used to risk-stratify patients with metastatic melanoma in practice or clinical trials.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00976573.

The incidence and risk of cutaneous toxicities associated with dabrafenib in melanoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has significant clinical activity in melanoma patients but is linked to a spectrum of cutaneous toxicities. Thus, our meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the type, incidence and risks of dermatological toxicities from dabrafenib.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed using electronic databases such as Embase and PubMed and conference abstracts published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Eligible studies were limited to prospective phase I, II and III clinical trials and expanded-access (ie, outside clinical trials) programmes of melanoma patients receiving dabrafenib monotherapy (150 mg, twice daily) or combination therapy of dabrafenib (150 mg, twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg, once daily). The outcomes were mainly the incidence rate and risk of all-grade cutaneous toxicities associated with dabrafenib in melanoma patients.

RESULTS

Twenty trials comprising a total of 3359 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the overall incidence of all-grade rash for melanoma patients assigned dabrafenib was 30.00% (95% CI 0.07 to 0.71), cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (cSCC) 16.00% (95% CI 0.11 to 0.24), alopecia 21% (95% CI 0.11 to 0.37), keratoacanthoma (KA) 20.00% (95% CI 0.12 to 0.31), hyperkeratosis (HK) 14.00% (95% CI 0.09 to 0.22) and pruritus 8.00% (95% CI 0.05 to 0.12). All-grade rash occurred in 19.00% (95% CI 0.15 to 0.25), cSCC in 10.00% (95% CI 0.04 to 0.22), alopecia in 6.00% (95% CI 0.03 to 0.12), KA in 6.00% (95% CI 0.04 to 0.09) and pruritus in 2/1265 patients assigned dabrafenib plus trametinib. The summary risk ratio (RR) showed that the combination of dabrafenib with trametinib versus dabrafenib was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-grade rash (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.80) and a decreased risk of cSCC (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89), alopecia (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30) and HK (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62).

CONCLUSION

In summary, the most frequent cutaneous adverse reactions from dabrafenib were rash, cSCC, alopecia, KA, HK and pruritus. There was a significantly decreased risk of cSCC, alopecia and HK with the combination of dabrafenib with trametinib versus dabrafenib alone. Clinicians should be aware of these risks and perform regular clinical monitoring.

Updates and challenges on treatment with BRAF/MEK-inhibitors in melanoma

Introduction

Breakthroughs in targeted therapy have significantly improved outcomes for many patients with advanced melanoma, including those with BRAFV600 mutant disease. Targeted therapy for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma includes combinations of BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors, which improve response rates and prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in these patients. However, while durable responses have been observed, many patients develop acquired resistance to these drugs.

Areas covered

Recent clinical trial updates and ongoing studies with targeted therapy for BRAF-V600 mutant melanoma are reviewed.

Expert opinion

Although BRAF targeted therapy remains an effective treatment for BRAF-mutant for melanoma, ongoing trials are exploring combinations with other targeted therapeutics and immunotherapeutics to determine whether tumor responses can be prolonged, and these drugs are increasingly utilized in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.