Up to 71% of lung cancer patients admitted to the ICU are newly diagnosed. The decision to initiate cancer directed treatments in lung cancer patients admitted to the ICU remains complex. For those with identified oncogene driver mutations, targeted therapies with rapid and high response rates are attractive treatment options. However, mechanically ventilated patients face additional barriers in which enteral tube administration of oral therapies may require tablets or capsules to be crushed or opened and diluted. Data on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of this alternative route of administration are often very limited. Here we describe the first case report of an intubated patient with newly diagnosed NSCLC who was successfully treated with opened dabrafenib capsules and crushed trametinib tablets administered through a nasogastric tube. We also provide a review of the existing literature on feeding tube administration of commonly used tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors administered through feeding tubes can lead to a clinically meaningful recovery in critically ill patients.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: The pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma (PSC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of NSCLC with rapid progression and poor prognosis, and is resistant to conventional chemotherapy. Most PSC cases have potential targetable genomic alterations. Approximately 7% of PSC patients have BRAF mutations, and the efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAFV600E mutated PSC is unclear.
UNASSIGNED: Our report describes a patient with mutated BRAFV600E PSC who underwent surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy early but quickly relapsed. Both chemotherapy and immunotherapy were ineffective for him, combined dabrafenib and trametinib produced a 6-month progression-free survival, and a partial response was observed in the tumor response evaluation. As a result of financial pressure, he stopped taking the targeted drugs, and his disease rapidly progressed.
UNASSIGNED: Dabrafenib combined with trametinib provides partial remission in patients with advanced PSC with BRAFV600E mutations, and large-scale NGS panels could offer more options for PSC treatment.

Metastatic BRAFV600E mutated colorectal cancer is associated with poor overall survival and modest effectiveness to standard therapies. Furthermore, survival is influenced by the microsatellite status. Patients with microsatellite-stable and BRAFV600E mutated colorectal cancer have the worst prognosis under the wide range of genetic subgroups in colorectal cancer. Herein, we present a patient case of an impressive therapeutic efficacy of dabrafenib, trametinib, and cetuximab as later-line therapy in a 52-year-old woman with advanced BRAFV600E mutated, microsatellite-stable colon cancer. This patient achieved a complete response after 1 year of triple therapy. Due to skin toxicity grade 3 and recurrent urinary tract infections due to mucosal toxicity, a therapy de-escalation to dabrafenib and trametinib was performed, and the double therapy was administered for further 41 months with ongoing complete response. For 1 year, the patient was off therapy and is still in complete remission.

BACKGROUND: Ameloblastoma in 66% of the cases harbor a somatic mutation of the \"mitogen-activated protein kinase\" signaling pathway (BRAF V600E). In V600E mutations, BRAF is in the permanent \"on\" state and relays the growth-promoting signals independently of the EGFR pathway. Therefore, mutant BRAF represents a target for handful of new drugs.
METHODS: We conducted a literature search, with the search terms \"Vemurafenib, Dabrafenib, Ameloblastoma, and BRAF.\" These included seven case reports with nine patients who underwent monotherapy with Dabrafenib or Vemurafenib or combination therapy with Dabrafenib and Trametinib.
RESULTS: The patients age ranges from 10 years up to 86 years. The distribution of women and men is 4:5. Patients with an initial diagnosis of ameloblastoma, as well as recurrences or metastasized ameloblastoma were treated. Indications cover neoadjuvant therapy up to the use in metastasized patients in an irresectable state. Results ranging from \"only\" tumor size reduction to restitutio ad integrum.
CONCLUSIONS: We see the use of BRAF Inhibitors to reduce tumor size with consecutive surgical treatment as a reasonable option for therapy. However, we are aware that at present the data are based only on case reports with the longest follow-up of just 38 months. We encourage further clinical trials in the use of BRAF Inhibitors for selecting ameloblastoma patients in a multi-center setting.

Background: The combination therapy of BRAF inhibitors (BRAFis) and MEK inhibitors (MEKis) has been approved as a first-line treatment for metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutants. Recently, BRAF mutations have been divided into three subtypes based on biochemical and signaling characteristics. Unlike V600 mutants that show class I BRAF mutations, evidence of the effects of using BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors in patients with non-V600 BRAF mutations remains unclear. The exploration of effective therapy for non-V600 BRAF mutations in melanoma has thus attracted much interest. Case presentation: We reported a case of a 64-year-old female metastatic melanoma patient with a novel BRAF p.L485-P490 deletion mutation. The patient received anti-PD1 agent pembrolizumab (100 mg) therapy as the first-line treatment for two cycles, which was terminated due to an intolerable adverse effect. Considering the p.L485-P490 deletion mutation signal as an active dimer which is akin to a class II BRAF mutation, the patient underwent dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy as a second-line treatment. After two cycles of combination treatment, the patient achieved a partial response confirmed by radiological examinations. At the last follow-up date, the patient had obtained over 18 months of progression-free survival, and the treatment was well tolerated. Conclusion: The combination therapy of dabrafenib and trametinib has been proven to be an effective method as a later-line therapy for metastatic melanoma patients with class II BRAF in-frame deletion mutations.

The 3rd class of BRAF (B-Raf Proto-Oncogene, Serine/Threonine Kinase) variants including G466, D594, and A581 mutations cause kinase death or impaired kinase activity. It is unlikely that RAF (Raf Proto-Oncogene, Serine/Threonine Kinase) inhibitors suppress ERK (Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase) signaling in class 3 mutant-driven tumors due to the fact that they preferentially inhibit activated BRAF V600 mutants. However, there are suggestions that class 3 mutations are still associated with enhanced RAS/MAPK (RAS Proto-Oncogene, GTPase/Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase) activation, potentially due to other mechanisms such as the activation of growth factor signaling or concurrent MAPK pathway mutations, e.g., RAS or NF1 (Neurofibromin 1). A 75-year-old male patient with squamous-cell cancer (SqCC) of the lung and with metastases to the kidney and mediastinal lymph nodes received chemoimmunotherapy (expression of Programmed Cell Death 1 Ligand 1 (PD-L1) on 2% of tumor cells). The chemotherapy was limited due to the accompanying myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and pembrolizumab monotherapy was continued for up to seven cycles. At the time of progression, next-generation sequencing was performed and a c.1781A>G (p.Asp594Gly) mutation in the BRAF gene, a c.1381C>T (p.Arg461Ter) mutation in the NF1 gene, and a c.37C>T (p.Gln13Ter) mutation in the FANCC gene were identified. Combined therapy with BRAF (dabrafenib) and MEK (trametinib) inhibitors was used, which resulted in the achievement of partial remission of the primary lesion and lung nodules and the stabilization of metastatic lesions in the kidney and bones. The therapy was discontinued after five months due to myelosuppression associated with MDS. The molecular background was decisive for the patient’s fate. NSCLC patients with non-V600 mutations in the BRAF gene rarely respond to anti-BRAF and anti-MEK therapy. The achieved effectiveness of the treatment could be related to a mutation in the NF1 tumor suppressor gene. The loss of NF1 function causes the excessive activation of KRAS and overactivity of the signaling pathway containing BRAF and MEK, which were the targets of the therapy. Moreover, the mutation in the FANCC gene was probably related to MDS development. The NGS technique was crucial for the qualification to treatment and the prediction of the NSCLC course in our patient. The mutations in two genes—the BRAF oncogene and the NF1 tumor suppressor gene—were the reason for the use of dabrafenib and trametinib treatment. The patients achieved short-term disease stabilization. This proved that coexisting mutations in these genes affect the disease course and treatment efficacy.

BRAF-mutant melanoma patients can theoretically access both immunotherapy and BRAF-targeted therapy as treatment for metastatic disease. BRAF-targeted therapy is increasingly used 1st line for poorer prognostic patients, so we wanted to assess realistic expectations of these patients accessing 2nd-line immunotherapy. We conducted a retrospective review of clinical outcomes in 25 patients treated over the last 3 years with 1st-line BRAF-targeted therapy in a real-world clinical setting at a UK-based tertiary centre. Compared with the registration trials, our patients receiving 1st-line BRAF-targeted therapy had poorer performance status, higher disease burden, shorter median progression-free survival (5.05 months, 95% CI: 3.96-8.88) and shorter median overall survival (11.5 months, 95% CI: 6.24 - not reached). Overall response rate was similar, at 64%. On disease progression, median survival was 2.34 months (95% CI: 1.62 - not reached). Only five patients went on to receive 2nd-line immunotherapy. Metastatic melanoma patients treated with 1st-line BRAF-targeted therapy now have different demographics compared with those recruited to registration trials conducted over the last 10 years. In a modern-day, real-world setting, these patients should be counselled that only 1 in 5 are likely to receive 2nd-line immunotherapy and their survival times are expected to be short.

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).
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.
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.
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.

UNASSIGNED: The introduction of BRAF/MEK inhibitors has significantly improved overall survival of patients with BRAF V600-mutant advanced or metastatic melanoma. Most patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors will experience adverse events during the course of their treatment. Kidney impairment, however, was rarely reported in the pivotal trials. To date, there are only three cases of biopsy-proven acute interstitial nephritis associated with dabrafenib and trametinib reported in the literature.
UNASSIGNED: A 50-year-old man diagnosed with metastatic melanoma was hospitalized in August 2021, 5 months after treatment initiation with dabrafenib and trametinib. He presented with acute kidney injury, with serum creatinine of 3.34 mg/dL and eGFR of 20.3 mL/min/m². Kidney biopsy revealed acute interstitial nephritis.
UNASSIGNED: He was treated with methylprednisolone 16 mg qd, and both dabrafenib and trametinib were permanently discontinued, with recuperation of his kidney function. Another BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination, encorafenib and binimetinib, was introduced, with preserved kidney function and excellent disease control.
UNASSIGNED: We report the first case of biopsy-proven interstitial nephritis in a patient treated with dabrafenib and trametinib, with successful introduction of another BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination. Although rare, clinicians should be aware of the risk of renal adverse events associated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Renal biopsy is mandatory in the absence of a clear explanation or rapid recovery of renal failure. In case of proven interstitial nephritis, corticosteroids should be initiated. Switching to another BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination can be considered for patients with complete recovery of renal function and limited treatment options.