OBJECTIVE: The MAPK pathway is constitutively activated in uveal melanoma (UM). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), a MEK inhibitor, has shown limited activity as monotherapy in metastatic UM. Pre-clinical studies support synergistic cytotoxic activity for MEK inhibitors combined with taxanes, and here we sought to assess the clinical efficacy of combining selumetinib and paclitaxel.
METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with metastatic UM who had not received prior chemotherapy were randomised to selumetinib alone, or combined with paclitaxel with or without interruption in selumetinib two days before paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). After amendment, the combination arms were combined for analysis and the sample size adjusted to detect a hazard ratio (HR): 0.55, 80% power at 1-sided 5% significance level.
RESULTS: The median PFS in the combination arms was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 - 5.6) compared with 3.4 months (2.0 - 3.9) in the selumetinib arm (HR 0.62 [90% CI 0.41 - 0.92], 1-sided p-value = 0.022). ORR was 14% and 4% in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively. Median OS was 9 months for the combination and was not significantly different from selumetinib alone (10 months) with HR of 0.98 [90% CI 0.58 - 1.66], 1-sided p-value = 0.469. Toxicity was in keeping with the known profiles of the agents involved.
CONCLUSIONS: SelPac met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in PFS for combination selumetinib and paclitaxel. No improvement in OS was observed, and the modest improvement in PFS is not practice changing.

BACKGROUND: NRAS-mutant melanoma is an aggressive subtype with poor prognosis; however, there is no approved targeted therapy to date worldwide.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, single-arm, phase II, pivotal registrational study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor tunlametinib in patients with unresectable, stage III/IV, NRAS-mutant melanoma (NCT05217303). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by independent radiological review committee (IRRC) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response(DOR), overall survival (OS) and safety.
RESULTS: Between November 2, 2020 and February 11, 2022, a total of 100 patients were enrolled. All (n = 100) patients received at least one dose of tunlametinib (safety analysis set [SAS]) and 95 had central laboratory-confirmed NRAS mutations (full analysis set [FAS]). In the FAS, NRAS mutations were observed at Q61 (78.9%), G12 (15.8%) and G13 (5.3%). The IRRC-assessed ORR was 35.8%, with a median DOR of 6.1 months. The median PFS was 4.2 months, DCR was 72.6% and median OS was 13.7 months. Subgroup analysis showed that in patients who had previously received immunotherapy, the ORR was 40.6%. No treatment-related deaths occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: Tunlametinib showed promising antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma, including those who had prior exposure to immunotherapy. The findings warrant further validation in a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: A \"Menstruatie Educatie Kalender\" application (Menstruation Education Calendar, (MEK-APP)) was developed for adults to evaluate menstrual complaints. The future aim of this app is to use it as a self-diagnostic instrument for menstrual abnormalities for both adults and adolescents. Early identification of the potential of an application for future use by both user groups would increase implementation success and adoption of the application.
OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in experienced usability by adults versus adolescents and to identify factors influencing future use for both age groups in one mHealth application (in this study the MEK-APP).
METHODS: This study consisted of three phases: (1) usability testing of the MEK-APP for iOS and Android by think-aloud method, (2) two-month daily use and (3) in-depth individual interview. During the think-aloud sessions, twelve tasks were performed in the application while they were thinking aloud. Usability problems were rated for their severity with Nielsen\' Severity Scale. Both the think-aloud sessions and in-depth interviews were verbatim transcribed and thematically analyzed to determine the factors influencing future use for both groups. In addition, the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) questionnaires were filled out during the interviews.
RESULTS: Seven adults (>18 years) and seven adolescents (14-18 years) evaluated the MEK-APP. There were 14 usability issues and 16 bugs in both groups. There were no differences between adults and adolescents. In the thematic qualitative analysis, the following future use factors were identified: user-expectation, motivation, privacy, understandability, and user-experience. The user-expectation, motivation and privacy differed between both groups but did not influence usage. No differences were observed in SUS and IMI scores between both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: There are five factors influencing the future use of a menstrual-related mHealth application for both adults and adolescents. It is possible to serve different age groups with a single application.

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy.

National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) is a precision medicine basket trial designed to test the effectiveness of treating cancers based on specific genetic changes in patients\' tumors, regardless of cancer type. Multiple subprotocols have each tested different targeted therapies matched to specific genetic aberrations. Most subprotocols exhibited low rates of tumor shrinkage as evaluated across all tumor types enrolled. We hypothesized that these results may arise because these precision cancer therapies have tumor type-specific efficacy, as is common among other cancer therapies.
To test the hypothesis that certain tumor types are more sensitive to specific therapies than other tumor types, we applied permutation testing to tumor volume change and progression-free survival data from 10 published NCI-MATCH subprotocols (together n = 435 patients). FDR was controlled by the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.
Six of ten subprotocols exhibited statistically significant evidence of tumor-specific drug sensitivity, four of which were previously considered negative based on response rate across all tumors. This signal-finding analysis highlights potential uses of FGFR tyrosine kinase inhibition in urothelial carcinomas with actionable FGFR aberrations and MEK inhibition in lung cancers with BRAF non-V600E mutations. In addition, it identifies low-grade serious ovarian carcinoma with BRAF v600E mutation as especially sensitive to BRAF and MEK co-inhibition (dabrafenib plus trametinib), a treatment that received accelerated FDA approval for advanced solid tumors with BRAF v600E mutation.
These findings support the value of basket trials because even when precision medicines do not have tumor-agnostic activity, basket trials can identify tumor-specific activity for future study.

BACKGROUND: BRAF+MEK inhibitors extend life expectancy of patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma. Acquired resistance limits duration of benefit, but preclinical and case studies suggest intermittent dosing could overcome this limitation. INTERIM was a phase 2 trial evaluating an intermittent dosing regimen.
METHODS: Patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma due to start dabrafenib+trametinib were randomised to receive either continuous (CONT), or intermittent (INT; dabrafenib d1-21, trametinib d1-14 every 28 days) dosing. A composite primary endpoint included progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary endpoints included response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Mutant BRAFV600E ctDNA was measured by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), using mutant allele frequency of > 1 % as the detection threshold.
RESULTS: 79 patients (39 INT, 40 CONT) were recruited; median age 67 years, 65 % AJCC (7th ed) stage IV M1c, 29 % had brain metastases. With 19 months median follow-up, INT was inferior in all efficacy measures: median PFS 8.5 vs 10.7mo (HR 1.39, 95 %CI 0.79-2.45, p = 0.255); median OS 18.1mo vs not reached (HR 1.69, 95 %CI 0.87-3.28, p = 0.121), ORR 57 % vs 77 %. INT patients experienced fewer treatment-related AEs (76 % vs 88 %), but more grade > 3 AEs (53 % vs 42 %). QoL favoured CONT. Detection of BRAFV600E ctDNA prior to treatment correlated with worse OS (HR 2.55, 95 %CI 1.25-5.21, p = 0.01) in both arms. A change to undetected during treatment did not significantly predict better OS.
CONCLUSIONS: INTERIM findings are consistent with other recent clinical trials reporting that intermittent dosing does not improve efficacy of BRAF+MEK inhibitors.

Stage IIB/IIC melanoma has a high risk of recurrence after surgical resection. While, for decades, surgery was the only option for high-risk stage II disease in most countries, adjuvant therapies now exist. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies significantly improve recurrence-free survival versus placebo in patients with fully resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Combined BRAF MEK inhibitor therapy showed benefits in high-risk stage III and advanced disease; however, its role in patients with fully resected stage BRAF-mutated IIB/IIC melanoma is still unknown. Here we describe the rationale and design of the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled COLUMBUS-AD trial, the first study of a BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination therapy (encorafenib + binimetinib) in patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma.
Melanoma is a type of skin cancer. Although most stage II melanomas (cancer affecting the first two layers of skin) can be cured with surgery, the risk of the cancer returning and spreading to other areas of the body is high in some patients with stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Furthermore, once the melanoma has spread, it is much more difficult to treat successfully and remove all the cancer cells from the body. Some melanomas have a DNA alteration (or mutation) in what is known as the BRAF gene. This mutation can be identified by testing a sample of the tumor tissue removed during a biopsy or surgery. Testing for BRAF mutations at diagnosis can help ensure that patients receive the most appropriate treatment for their cancer. In some countries, surgery is the only option for patients with stage II melanoma, while in other countries, patients may be offered additional (adjuvant) anticancer treatment with immunotherapy (agents that work with the immune system to kill cancer cells). While immunotherapy can reduce the risk of melanoma recurrence, persistent, long-term toxicities are common and the use of this treatment in all stage IIB/IIC melanoma patients is not always possible. Here, we describe the rationale and design of an ongoing clinical trial (COLUMBUS-AD), which will be the first study (to our knowledge) to investigate the efficacy and safety of a treatment that specifically targets cancers with BRAF mutations (i.e., the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination of the drugs encorafenib and binimetinib) in patients with BRAF-mutated stage IIB/IIC melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05270044 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy is considered a preferred first-line treatment for advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. However, a recent international multi-center study suggested that the efficacy of immunotherapy is poorer in Asian patients in the non-acral cutaneous subtype. We hypothesized that the optimal first-line treatment for Asian patients may be different.
We retrospectively collected data of Asian patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma treated with first-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (Anti-PD-1), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (PD-1/CTLA-4) between 2016 and 2021 from 28 institutions in Japan.
We identified 336 patients treated with BRAF/MEKi (n = 236), Anti-PD-1 (n = 64) and PD-1/CTLA-4 (n = 36). The median follow-up duration was 19.9 months for all patients and 28.6 months for the 184 pa tients who were alive at their last follow-up. For patients treated with BRAF/MEKi, anti-PD-1, PD-1/CTLA-4, the median ages at baseline were 62, 62, and 53 years (p = 0.03); objective response rates were 69%, 27%, and 28% (p < 0.001); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7, 5.4, and 5.8 months (p = 0.003), and median overall survival (OS) was 34.6, 37.0 months, and not reached, respectively (p = 0.535). In multivariable analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS of Anti-PD-1 and PD-1/CTLA-4 compared with BRAF/MEKi were 2.30 (p < 0.001) and 1.38 (p = 0.147), and for OS, HRs were 1.37 (p = 0.111) and 0.56 (p = 0.075), respectively. In propensity-score matching, BRAF/MEKi showed a tendency for longer PFS and equivalent OS with PD-1/CTLA-4 (HRs for PD-1/CTLA-4 were 1.78 [p = 0.149]) and 1.03 [p = 0.953], respectively). For patients who received second-line treatment, BRAF/MEKi followed by PD-1/CTLA-4 showed poor survival outcomes.
The superiority of PD-1/CTLA-4 over BRAF/MEKi appears modest in Asian patients. First-line BRAF/MEKi remains feasible, but it is difficult to salvage at progression. Ethnicity should be considered when selecting systemic therapies until personalized biomarkers are available in daily practice. Further studies are needed to establish the optimal treatment sequence for Asian patients.

The utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors in combination therapy has demonstrated superior outcomes in the treatment of melanoma as compared to monotherapy. In the present scenario, the combination therapy of Encorafenib (ENC), a BRAF inhibitor, and Binimetinib (BINI), a MEK inhibitor, has been identified as one of the most efficacious treatment modalities for this malignancy. Investigations of protein binding, particularly with human serum albumin (HSA), are essential to understand drug performance and enhance therapeutic outcomes. The investigation of the interplay between small molecule drugs and HSA is of paramount importance, given that such interactions can exert a substantial influence on the pharmacokinetics of these therapeutic agents. The present study aims to bridge these lacunae by implementing a comprehensive approach that integrates fluorescence spectroscopy (FS), isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC), far-ultraviolet circular dichroism (far-UV CD), and molecular simulations. Through analysis of the fluorescence quenching of HSA at three distinct temperatures, it was ascertained that the association constants for the complexes formed between drugs and HSA were of the magnitude of 104 M-1. This suggests that the interactions between the compounds and albumin were moderate and comparable. Simultaneously, the investigation of fluorescence indicated a contrasting binding mechanism for the two inhibitors: ENC predominantly binds to HSA through enthalpic interaction, while BINI/HSA is stabilized by entropic contributions. The data obtained was confirmed through experimental procedures conducted using the ITC method. The results of ligand-competitive displacement experiments indicate that ENC and BINI can bind to HSA within subdomain IIA, specifically Sudlow site I. However, far-UV CD studies show that there are no notable alterations in the structure of HSA upon binding with either of the two inhibitors. Ultimately, the results were supported by computational molecular analysis, which identified the key interactions that contribute to the stabilization of the two ligand/HSA complexes.

In COLUMBUS part 1, patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice a day (COMBO450), vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily (ENCO300). As previously reported, COMBO450 improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus vemurafenib (part 1 primary end point) and ENCO300 (part 1 key secondary end point; not statistically significant). Part 2, requested by the US Food and Drug Administration, evaluated the contribution of binimetinib by maintaining the same encorafenib dosage in the combination (encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [COMBO300]) and ENCO300 arms.
In part 2, patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to COMBO300 or ENCO300. ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) data were combined, per protocol, for PFS analysis (key secondary end point) by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Other analyses included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and safety.
Two hundred fifty-eight patients received COMBO300, and 86 received ENCO300. Per protocol, ENCO300 arms (parts 1 and 2 combined) were also evaluated (n = 280). The median follow-up for ENCO300 was 40.8 months (part 1) and 57.1 months (part 2). The median PFS (95% CI) was 12.9 months (10.9 to 14.9) for COMBO300 versus 9.2  months (7.4 to 11.1) for ENCO300 (parts 1  and  2) and 7.4  months (5.6 to 9.2) for ENCO300 (part 2). The hazard ratio (95% CI) for COMBO300 was 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92; two-sided P = .003) versus ENCO300 (parts 1  and  2). The ORR by BIRC (95% CI) was 68% (62 to 74) and 51% (45 to 57) for COMBO300 and ENCO300 (parts 1  and  2), respectively. COMBO300 had greater relative dose intensity and fewer grade 3/4 adverse events than ENCO300.
COMBO300 improved PFS, ORR, and tolerability compared with ENCO300, confirming the contribution of binimetinib to efficacy and safety.