BACKGROUND: Lung cancer, accounting for a significant proportion of global cancer cases and deaths, poses a considerable health burden. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options due to late-stage diagnosis and drug resistance. Dysregulated of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, which is implicated in NSCLC pathogenesis, underscores the potential of MEK inhibitors such as binimetinib. Despite promising results in other cancers, comprehensive studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of binimetinib in lung cancer are lacking. This systematic review aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of binimetinib for lung cancer treatment.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar until September 2023. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy or safety of binimetinib for lung cancer treatment were included. Studies were excluded if they included individuals with conditions unrelated to lung cancer, investigated other treatments, or had different types of designs. The quality assessment was conducted utilizing the National Institutes of Health tool.
RESULTS: Seven studies with 228 participants overall were included. Four had good quality judgments, and three had fair quality judgments. The majority of patients experienced all-cause adverse events, with diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea being the most commonly reported adverse events of any grade. The objective response rate (ORR) was up to 75%, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was up to 9.3 months. The disease control rate after 24 weeks varied from 41% to 64%. Overall survival (OS) ranged between 3.0 and 18.8 months. Notably, treatment-related adverse events were observed in more than 50% of patients, including serious adverse events such as colitis, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary infection. Some adverse events led to dose limitation and drug discontinuation in five studies. Additionally, five studies reported cases of death, mostly due to disease progression. The median duration of treatment ranged from 14.8 weeks to 8.4 months. The most common dosage of binimetinib was 30 mg or 45 mg twice daily, sometimes used in combination with other agents like encorafenib or hydroxychloroquine.
CONCLUSIONS: Only a few studies have shown binimetinib to be effective, in terms of improving OS, PFS, and ORR, while most of the studies found nonsignificant efficacy with increased toxicity for binimetinib compared with traditional chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are recommended.

According to current guidelines, targeted therapy with a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the preferred first-line treatment for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 PHAROS trial (NCT03915951), the combination of encorafenib, a potent BRAF inhibitor, and binimetinib, a potent MEK inhibitor, demonstrated durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in this patient population. On the basis of the results of this study, the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on October 11, 2023, for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib from the PHAROS study. In addition, we discuss strategies to manage adverse reactions with this combination therapy with the intent of minimizing unnecessary treatment discontinuations in these patients.

UNASSIGNED: Encorafenib and binimetinib, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors, is a standard of care for patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. This combination is known to have gastrointestinal side effects, most of which are mild and managed symptomatically. However, very few studies have reported severe colitis.
UNASSIGNED: We report here 2 patients with advanced melanoma who developed severe ulcerated right colitis manifested by diarrhea and hematochezia while being treated with encorafenib and binimetinib after immune checkpoint therapy.
UNASSIGNED: This rare but serious adverse event was not described in early phase 3 trials but has emerged in recent years, particularly with the sequential use of immune checkpoint inhibitors followed by BRAF/MEK inhibitors. In a comprehensive review of the existing literature, we identified 20 cases of severe colitis due to BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Clinical, endoscopic, and histological features are described to provide insight into the current understanding of this poorly understood clinical entity.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Low grade serous carcinoma of the ovary and peritoneum (LGSC) is characterized by low response rates to chemotherapy and by MAPK pathway alterations. Phase II/III clinical trials tested different MEK inhibitors (MEKis) in this complex malignancy, with heterogenous results. Purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to define activity and efficacy of these agents and explore differences in clinical outcomes related to RAS/RAF mutational status.
METHODS: In March 2022, we searched Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the major conference proceedings (ASCO, ESMO) for randomized and non-randomized clinical trials evaluating MEKi as single agent in recurrent LGSC. The screening was performed independently by two reviewers. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) data were extracted, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 4 clinical trials involving 648 patients were included. In the intention-to-treat population, use of a MEK inhibitor was not associated with a significant improvement in PFS, with a pooled Hazard Ratio equal to 0.75 (95 % CI: 0.30 - 1.86, P = 0.54). Heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 92 %; P = 0.0004). In the overall study population, the pooled odds ratio of ORR for MEKis compared to control treatment was 2.61 (95 % CI: 0.65 - 10.54, P = 0.18). Specifically, ORR was 20.12 % in patients treated with MEKis compared to 9.09 % in women receiving standard treatment. Heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 85 %; P = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: Although no statistically significant improvement in PFS was demonstrated, the available data show clear signals of activity, at least for some MEKis.

We reviewed the literature to assess the efficacy and risk of constitutional, cardiac, gastrointestinal, and dermatological toxicities of combined BRAF plus MEK inhibitors versus BRAF inhibitors alone in patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutations. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google scholar, ASCO, Scopus, and EMBASE for reports published from January 2010 through March 2019. Efficacy, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates, were assessed by hazard ratio (HR); objective response rates (ORR) were assessed by odds ratio (OR). The randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with comparison to vemurafenib monotherapy were included to determine constitutional, gastrointestinal, cardiac, and dermatological toxicities using PRISMA statistical analysis with relative risk (RR) for equal comparison to avoid inclusion bias. Five RTCs comprising 2307 patients were included to assess efficacy, while three of the five RCTs comprising 1776 patients were included to assess adverse events. BRAF plus MEK inhibitor combination therapy demonstrated overall better efficacy compared to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. Combination therapies appear to have favorable dermatologic side effect profiles, similar constitutional and cardiac profiles, and slightly worse gastrointestinal profiles compares to monotherapy regimens.

Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment\'s relative effectiveness and safety.
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments.
The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57).
Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment\'s relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.

BRAF and MEK inhibitors have demonstrated significant survival benefits for patients with cutaneous melanoma. However, their use for uveal melanoma (UM) is less established. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of MEK inhibitors in metastatic UM.
We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library CENTRAL from 1946 through 17 April 2018. Abstracts of oncologic conferences, trial registers and reference lists were handsearched for relevant publications. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Of 590 records identified, six studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Data were available for selumetinib ± dacarbazine (n = 3), trametinib ± AKT inhibitor (n = 2) and binimetinib plus sotrastaurin (n = 1) from three open-label phase II, two open-label phase I and one placebo-controlled phase III trial. The overall response rate was available in five studies and ranged from 0 to 14% with an average of 2.5%. The median progression-free survival ranged from 3.1 weeks to 16 weeks. Data on overall survival and 1-year survival rates were not consistently reported. Severe treatment-related adverse events were observed most commonly for the combination use of selumetinib plus dacarbazine (62%) and binimetinib plus sotrastaurin (75%).
UM is little responsive to MEK inhibition, regardless of the inhibiting agent and combination partner. Our results do not support the use of MEK inhibitors in UM. Novel treatment options are urgently needed in this patient population.

Although significant progress has been made in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, at least half of all advanced melanoma patients eventually progress and pass away due to their disease. In particular, patients with NRAS-mutated melanoma still face limited therapeutic options, with immunotherapy being the current treatment type of choice. Binimetinib is a selective inhibitor of MEK, a central kinase in the tumor-promoting MAPK pathway. The results of a recent Phase III trial rendered binimetinib the first targeted therapy agent to significantly improve progression-free survival in NRAS-mutated melanoma. This review will summarize the development and clinical data of binimetinib in melanoma in general and also explore the potential future role of this substance as single agent or combination therapy.