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.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. BRAF mutation is present in about 10% of CRC patients and is associated with a poor response to chemotherapy. These patients have a relatively poor prognosis. This review aims to assess the efficacy and safety of BRAF inhibitors in BRAF-mutated CRC patients. A literature search was performed on PubMed and Embase, and clinical trials relevant to BRAF inhibitors in CRC were included. Data were extracted for efficacy and safety variables. Two randomized clinical trials (n = 765) and eight non-randomized trials (n = 281) were included based on inclusion criteria. In RCTs, an overall response was reported in 23% of the patients treated with BRAF inhibitor-based regimens compared to 2.5% with control regimens. The hazard ratio of overall survival was also significantly better with triplet encorafenib therapy at 0.52 (95% CI = 0.39-0.70). In single-arm trials, ORR was 17% and 34% in two-drug and three-drug regimens, respectively. BRAF inhibitor-based regimens were safe and effective in the treatment of BRAF-mutated CRC. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to find a suitable population for each regimen. PROSPERO registration No. CRD42023471627.

暂无摘要。

Encorafenib is a B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine-protein kinase (BRAF) inhibitor, approved in the EU and USA, in combination with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor cetuximab, for the treatment of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the pivotal BEACON CRC trial, patients achieved longer survival with encorafenib in combination with cetuximab vs. conventional chemotherapy. This targeted therapy regimen is also generally better tolerated than cytotoxic treatments. However, patients may present with adverse events unique to the regimen and characteristic of BRAF and EGFR inhibitors, which produce their own set of challenges. Nurses play an essential role in navigating the care of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC and managing adverse events that patients may experience. This includes early and efficient identification of treatment-related adverse events, subsequent management of adverse events and education of patients and their caregivers around key adverse events. This manuscript aims to provide support to nurses managing patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC receiving encorafenib in combination with cetuximab, by summarising potential adverse events and providing guidance on how to manage them. Special attention will be paid to the presentation of key adverse events, dose modifications that may be required, practical recommendations and supportive care measures.

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.

BRAF-inhibitors have emerged as a promising targeted therapy for malignancies with BRAF mutations, particularly metastatic melanoma. However, granulomatous reactions including sarcoidosis and sarcoid-like-reactions have been reported as a consequence of BRAF-inhibition. It is important to adequately characterise these granulomatous reactions including cutaneous manifestations and systemic involvement, in order to guide investigations and management. A literature review was conducted to characterise the spectrum of granulomatous reactions associated with BRAF-inhibitors - identifying 55 reactions affecting 51 patients, with 37 reactions limited to cutaneous involvement. Further, possible correlation with cancer response, mechanisms of granuloma formation, as well as a proposed workup and management approach for these granulomatous reactions are presented.

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.