Jet-injection assisted photodynamic therapy for superficial and nodular basal cell carcinoma: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with topical δ-Aminolevulinic acid (ALA) has efficacy in treating basal cell carcinoma (BCC) but is limited by incomplete penetration of ALA into the deeper dermis. This prospective open-label pilot trial investigated the safety and efficacy of photosensitizer jet injection for PDT (JI-PDT) for BCC treatment. It was performed with 15 patients (n = 15) with histologically confirmed, untreated, low-risk nodular BCCs at a single institution. METHODS: For the intervention, JI-PDT patients (n = 11) received two sessions of jet-injected ALA with PDT separated by four to 6 weeks. To further understand treatment technique, another group of patients (n = 4) received jet-injected ALA followed by tumor excision and fluorescence microscopy (JI-E). Treatment tolerability was assessed by local skin responses (LSR) score at five distinct time intervals. Fluorescence microscopy assessed protoporphyrin IX penetration depth and biodistribution within the tumor. At the primary endpoint, tumor clearance was evaluated via visual inspection, dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy. Postinjection and postillumination pain levels, and patient satisfaction, were scored on a 0-10 scale. RESULTS: Fifteen participants with mean age of 58.3, who were 15/15 White, non-Hispanic enrolled. The median composite LSR score immediately after JI-PDT was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] = 3) which decreased to 0.5 (IQR = 1) at primary endpoint (p < 0.01). Immunofluorescence of excised BCC tumors with jet-injected ALA showed photosensitizer penetration into papillary and reticular dermis. Of the 13 JI-PDT tumors, 11 had tumor clearance confirmed, 1 recurred, and 1 was lost to follow-up. 1/11 patients experienced a serious adverse event of cellulitis. 70% of patients had local scarring at 3 months. Patients reported an average pain level of 5.6 (standard deviation [SD] = 2.3) during jet injection and 3.7 (SD = 1.8) during light illumination. CONCLUSIONS: Jet injection of ALA for PDT treatment of nodular low-risk BCC is tolerable and feasible and may represent a novel modality to improve PDT.

Pegylated interferon-α2a in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma - a multicenter retrospective data analysis with 70 patients.

BACKGROUND: Interferon-alpha is an important therapeutic option for the treatment of the cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL). Since the approved recombinant interferon-α-2a (IFN-α2a) has no longer been produced since January 2020, pegylated interferon-α2a (pegIFN-α2a) can be used as an alternative treatment, even though it is not approved for the treatment of CTCL. The aim of this multicentre study was to generate comprehensive data on the efficacy and tolerability of pegIFN-α2a in the treatment of CTCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted with 70 patients with CTCL from twelve German skin centers. RESULTS: In total, 70 patients were included in the study, with 57.2% male and a mean age of 58.8 ± 14.9 years. Mycosis fungoides was present in 71.4% of cases and Sézary Syndrome in 28.6%. An overall response rate of 55.2% was observed with pegIFNα-2a therapy. In 50% of cases, therapy was discontinued after 63.6 ± 33.5 weeks. The most common reason for discontinuation was adverse events, which occurred in 68.6% of cases and which were classified as severe in 29.2%. Blood count changes, fatigue and liver toxicity occurred most frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides comprehensive data on the efficacy and tolerability of pegIFNα-2a therapy in patients with CTCL. In terms of response rates and side effect profile, pegIFNα-2a appears to be comparable to IFN-α2a therapy.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus placebo in patients with resected stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (IMMUNED): final results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The IMMUNED trial previously showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival for adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab as well as for adjuvant nivolumab alone in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after resection or radiotherapy. Here, we report the final analysis, including overall survival data. METHODS: IMMUNED was an investigator-sponsored, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-arm, phase 2 trial conducted in 20 academic medical centres in Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after surgery or radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks), nivolumab monotherapy (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks), or matching placebo, for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were time-to-recurrence, overall survival, progression-free survival or recurrence-free survival 2 (in patients in the placebo group who crossed over to nivolumab monotherapy after experiencing disease recurrence), and safety endpoints. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02523313), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2, 2015, and Nov 20, 2018, 175 patients were enrolled in the study, and 167 were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=56), nivolumab plus ipilimumab-matching placebo (n=59), or double placebo control (n=52). At a median follow-up of 49·2 months (IQR 34·9-58·1), 4-year recurrence-free survival was 64·2% (95% CI 49·2-75·9) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 31·4% (19·7-43·8) in the nivolumab alone group, and 15·0% (6·7-26·6) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo was 0·25 (97·5% CI 0·13-0·48; p<0·0001), and for the nivolumab group versus placebo was 0·60 (0·36-1·00; p=0·024). Median overall survival was not reached in any treatment group. The HR for overall survival was significantly in favour of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo (HR 0·41; 95% CI 0·17-0·99; p=0·040), but not for the nivolumab group versus placebo (HR 0·75; 0·36-1·56; p=0·44). 4-year overall survival was 83·8% (95% CI 68·8-91·9) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 72·6% (57·4-83·2) in the nivolumab alone group, and 63·1% (46·9-75·6) in the placebo group. The median progression-free survival or recurrence-free survival 2 of patients in the placebo group who crossed over to nivolumab monotherapy after experiencing disease recurrence was not reached (95% CI 21·2 months to not reached). Rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events remained largely unchanged compared with our previous report, occurring in 71% (95% CI 57-82) of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, and 29% (95% CI 17-42) of patients receiving nivolumab alone. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Both active regimens continued to show significantly improved recurrence-free survival compared with placebo in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease who were at high risk of recurrence. Overall survival was significantly improved for patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with placebo. Use of subsequent anti-PD-1-based therapy was high in patients in the placebo group after recurrence and most likely impacted the overall survival comparison of nivolumab alone versus placebo. The recurrence-free and overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over placebo reinforces the change of practice already initiated for the treatment of patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

PRO-CTCAE reveals under-recognition of dermatologic symptom burden in hospitalized cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) occur frequently in hospitalized patients and can significantly reduce quality of life. Physicians grade dAEs using the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE). However, they often underestimate symptom frequency and severity. The patient-reported outcomes (PRO) version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to assess symptoms from the patient's perspective. In this study, we assessed the patient-reported burden of dAEs via the PRO-CTCAE questionnaire and compared results with dAE assessment by treating oncologists and dermatologists. METHODS: Patients admitted to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 6/1/2018 to 4/30/2019 and received a dermatology consultation were eligible. Once enrolled, participants completed a PRO-CTCAE questionnaire on 14 dermatologic symptoms. CTCAE grades assigned by oncology and dermatology were obtained from clinical notes, and kappa statistics were calculated to evaluate the level of agreement between physician and patient evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (mean age 59.4, 55% male) were prospectively enrolled. The most common patient-reported dAEs were rash (72%), swelling (67%), pruritus (64%), bruising (53%), and hives (37%). Oncologists and dermatologists underreported dAEs except for rash (median kappa values 0.3 [0.02-0.84] and 0.32 [0.02-0.87], respectively). Oncologists and dermatologists were concordant with each other's documented assessment of dAEs (median kappa value 0.985 [0.55-1]). CONCLUSION: Oncology patient-reported dAEs in a tertiary academic oncologic referral center were under-recognized by providers. PRO-CTCAE may be a useful tool to optimize inpatient dermatologic care for cancer patients by detecting and allowing management of patient-reported dAEs.

Laser therapy as a treatment for chronic radiation fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic radiation fibrosis (CRF) is a long-term sequala of radiation therapy that has a significant impact on patient quality of life. There is no standard of care or single therapeutic modality that has been found to be consistently effective. OBJECTIVE: To describe our experience using fractional 10,600 nm carbon dioxide (CO2 ) laser therapy and vascular laser therapy in a series of patients with CRF. METHODS: Patients presenting to the dermatology service for CRF were evaluated for laser therapy eligibility. Patients were eligible if they had a clinical diagnosis of CRF confirmed by physical examination. RESULTS: We identified five patients with CRF treated with fractional ablative CO2 laser and vascular laser. Patients were a median age of 57 years old, and the amount of time between the initiation of radiotherapy and laser treatment ranged between 3 months and 40 years. The satisfactory response was achieved in all cases. LIMITATIONS: Lack of standardized laser protocol, small sample size, lack of a control group, different anatomical locations CONCLUSION: Fractional ablative and vascular laser therapy may serve as an additional treatment for CRF, leading to functional improvements.

Targeted Therapy for Melanomas Without BRAF V600 Mutations.

OPINION STATEMENT: Modern therapy of advanced melanoma offers effective targeted therapeutic options in the form of BRAF plus MEK inhibition for patients with BRAF V600 mutations. For patients lacking these mutations, checkpoint inhibition remains the only first-line choice for treatment of metastatic disease. However, approximately half of patients do not respond to immunotherapy, requiring effective options for a second-line treatment. Advances in genetic profiling have found other possible target molecules, especially a wide array of rare non-V600 BRAF mutations which may respond to available targeted therapy.More information on the characteristics of such mutants is needed to further assess the efficacy of targeted therapies in the metastatic and adjuvant setting of advanced melanoma. Thus, it may be helpful to classify known BRAF mutations by their kinase activation status and dependence on alternative signaling pathways. While BRAF V600 mutations appear to have an overall more prominent role of kinase activity for tumor growth, non-V600 BRAF mutations show great differences in kinase activation and, hence, response to BRAF plus MEK inhibition. When BRAF-mutated melanomas rely on additional signaling molecules such as RAS for tumor growth, greater benefit may be expected from MEK inhibition than BRAF inhibition. In other cases, mutations of c-kit or NRAS may serve as important pharmacological targets in advanced melanoma. However, since benefit from currently available targeted therapies for non-V600 mutants is usually inferior regarding response and long-term outcome, checkpoint inhibitors remain the standard recommended first-line therapy for these patients.Herein, we review the current clinical data for characteristics and response to targeted therapy of melanomas lacking a V600 BRAF mutation.

Efficacy of laser CO2 treatment for refractory lymphedema secondary to cancer treatments.

Lymphedema is a frequent debilitating condition among cancer patients. Daily supportive treatment may be necessary without long-term improvement. We describe two cases with chronic refractory lymphedema treated with fractional 10,600 nm CO2 laser. A 61-year-old female with locally advanced cervical cancer presented with postsurgical edematous swelling of the vulva and mons pubis and recurring cellulitis due to chronic lymphangiectasia. After six treatments of fractional CO2 laser, she noticed an 80% reduction of lymphorrea, swelling, and frequency of cellulitis. A 32-year old melanoma patient presented with refractory right lower leg lymphedema post right inguinal lymph node dissection and radiation. After fractional CO2 laser, she noted increased softness of her inguinal scar and a decrease of the lower leg edema. Fractional CO2 laser may be useful in addressing chronic refractory lymphedema. Further research should confirm our findings to consider fractional laser as a standard method in the treatment of chronic lymphedema.

Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus placebo in patients with resected stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (IMMUNED): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and ipilimumab, alone or in combination, are widely used immunotherapeutic treatment options for patients with advanced-ie, unresectable or metastatic-melanoma. This criterion, however, excludes patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus a placebo in this patient population. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial in 20 German academic medical centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease after surgery or radiotherapy. Key exclusion criteria included uveal or mucosal melanoma, previous therapy with checkpoint inhibitors, and any previous immunosuppressive therapy within the 30 days before study drug administration. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a central, interactive, online system, to the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (1 mg/kg of intravenous nivolumab every 3 weeks plus 3 mg/kg of intravenous ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks), nivolumab monotherapy group (3 mg/kg of intravenous nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab-matching placebo during weeks 1-12), or double-matching placebo group. The primary endpoint was the recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The results presented in this report reflect the prespecified interim analysis of recurrence-free survival after 90 events had been reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02523313, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2, 2015, and Nov 20, 2018, 167 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=56), nivolumab (n=59), or placebo (n=52). As of July 2, 2019, at a median follow-up of 28·4 months (IQR 17·7-36·8), median recurrence-free survival was not reached in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, whereas median recurrence-free survival was 12·4 months (95% CI 5·3-33·3) in the nivolumab group and 6·4 months (3·3-9·6) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for recurrence for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus placebo group was 0·23 (97·5% CI 0·12-0·45; p<0·0001), and for the nivolumab group versus placebo group was 0·56 (0·33-0·94; p=0·011). In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, recurrence-free survival at 1 year was 75% (95% CI 61·0-84·9) and at 2 years was 70% (55·1-81·0); in the nivolumab group, 1-year recurrence-free survival was 52% (38·1-63·9) and at 2 years was 42% (28·6-54·5); and in the placebo group, this rate was 32% (19·8-45·3) at 1 year and 14% (5·9-25·7) at 2 years. Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 71% (95% CI 57-82) of patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and in 27% (16-40) of those in the nivolumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade led to treatment discontinuation in 34 (62%) of 55 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and seven (13%) of 56 in the nivolumab group. Three deaths from adverse events were reported but were considered unrelated to the study treatment. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab increased recurrence-free survival significantly compared with placebo in patients with stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease. The rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in both active treatment groups were higher than the rates reported in previous pivotal trials done in advanced melanoma with measurable disease. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Physicians' level of hindrance by body hair in dermatoscopy and clinical benefit of an automated hair removal algorithm.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dermatoscopy may be hindered by body hair, and the development of an automated hair removal algorithm (AuHRA) might improve the diagnostic accuracy. However, the physicians' exact level of hindrance and the clinical benefit attained by AuHRA has not been assessed. The objectives of this study are to quantify the physicians' level of hindrance by body hair and the level of improvement in the visibility of underlying dermatoscopic patterns after application of AuHRA to digital images of hair-covered nevi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional reader study including 59 sets of dermatoscopic images of benign nevi that were presented to six dermatologists. Each set included three images of one individual nevus (unshaved/physically shaved/digitally shaved with AuHRA), which were compared to each other within each set to assess the level of improvement caused by hair removal. RESULTS: In comparison to unshaved lesions, dermatologists attributed the highest mean level of improvement to a physical shave (+1.36, p < 0.001) followed by AuHRA's digital shave (+0.79, p < 0.001). The majority of dermatologists considered the application of AuHRA as helpful and confirmed a medical need. CONCLUSIONS: The dermatologists in our study confirmed a substantial impairment of the dermatoscopic examination by body hair. We demonstrated a clinical benefit attained by AuHRA in comparison to unshaved or physically shaved lesions.

Mechano-insensitive nociceptors are sufficient to induce histamine-induced itch.

The nerve fibres underlying histamine-induced itch have not been fully elucidated. We blocked the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve and mapped the skin area unresponsive to mechanical stimulation, but still sensitive to electrically induced pain. Nerve block induced significantly larger anaesthetic areas to mechanical (100 mN pin-prick, 402 ± 61 cm²; brush, 393 ± 63 cm²) and heat pain stimuli (401 ± 53 cm²) compared with electrical stimulation (352 ± 62 cm², p < 0.05), whereas the anaesthetic area tested with 260 mN (374 ± 57 cm²) did not differ significantly. Histamine was applied by iontophoresis (7.5 mC) at skin sites in which mechanical sensitivity was blocked, but electrical stimulation was still perceived 30 min after the nerve block (n = 9). In these areas iontophoresis of histamine provoked itching in 8/9 subjects with a mean maximum of 4.6 ± 1 (on an 11-point rating scale). Histamine-induced itch can thus be perceived at skin sites where input from mechano-sensitive polymodal nociceptors is blocked. In conclusion, input from mechano-insensitive nociceptors is sufficient to generate histamine-induced itch.

Treatment of Indolent Cutaneous B-Cell Lymphoma with Intralesional or Intravenous Rituximab.

Indolent cutaneous B-cell lymphomas (CBCL) are a rare disease for which the therapeutic recommendations are based on clinical reports. Recommendations for solitary lesions include surgery or irradiation. However, the high relapse rates may require less invasive repeatable therapy. This study seeks to retrospectively assess the efficacy of intralesional rituximab (ILR) for indolent CBCL when compared with intravenous rituximab (IVR). Patients treated for indolent CBCL with ILR or IVR at the Division of DermatoOncology of the University Hospital Heidelberg were eligible for this study. Characteristics of lymphoma, treatment response, and adverse events were assessed. Twenty-one patients, 67% male at a median age of 52 (range 17-80), were included. Nineteen (90%) had only localized lymphoma (stage T1 and T2). Complete response was achieved in 92% (11/12) of ILR after a median of one cycle (three injections) and 78% (7/8) of IVR patients after a median of six cycles. Half of ILR patients and 78% of IVR patients showed relapse after a median of 15 and 23 months, respectively. Adverse reactions were usually mild and were limited to the first injection of ILR. One patient with IVR contracted a pulmonary infection. ILR may be an alternative to the intravenous administration of rituximab for localized indolent CBCL.

Evaluation of radio-immunotherapy sequence on immunological responses and clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases (ELEKTRA).

In patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM), a combination of radiotherapy (RT) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is routinely used. However, the best sequence of radio-immunotherapy (RIT) remains unclear. In an exploratory phase 2 trial, MBM patients received RT (stereotactic or whole-brain radiotherapy depending on the number of MBM) combined with ipilimumab (ipi) ± nivolumab (nivo) in different sequencing (Rad-ICI or ICI-Rad). Comparators arms included patients treated with ipi-free systemic treatment or without RT (in MBM-free patients). The primary endpoints were radiological and immunological responses in the peripheral blood. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Of 106 screened, 92 patients were included in the study. Multivariate analysis revealed an advantage for patients starting with RT (Rad-ICI) for overall response rate (RR: p = .007; HR: 7.88 (95%CI: 1.76-35.27)) and disease control rate (DCR: p = .036; HR: 6.26 (95%CI: 1.13-34.71)) with a trend for a better PFS (p = .162; HR: 1.64 (95%CI: 0.8-3.3)). After RT plus two cycles of ipi-based ICI in both RIT sequences, increased frequencies of activated CD4, CD8 T cells and an increase in melanoma-specific T cell responses were observed in the peripheral blood. Lasso regression analysis revealed a significant clinical benefit for patients treated with Rad-ICI sequence and immunological features, including high frequencies of memory T cells and activated CD8 T cells in the blood. This study supports increasing evidence that sequencing RT followed by ICI treatment may have better effects on the immunological responses and clinical outcomes in MBM patients.

Expression of p53 up-regulated modulator of apoptosis (PUMA) in non-melanoma skin cancer of long-term immunosuppressed solid organ transplant recipients compared to immunocompetent patients.

The risk of UV radiation (UVR)-induced non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is dramatically increased in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients compared to immunocompetent patients. In the skin, p53 up-regulated modulator of apoptosis (PUMA) is a central regulator of apoptosis in response to UVR damage and immune response regulation. Data on the expression of PUMA in patients with NMSC relative to immune status is limited To study differences in the expression and distribution of PUMA in cutaneous SCC and BCC by immunohistochemistry between immunocompetent patients and organ transplant recipients, and the effect of CsA-containing immunosuppressive maintenance regimens on this expression. PUMA expression in SCC (n = 34) and BCC (n = 20) was analysed comparatively by immunohistochemical staining in matched cohorts of 27 immunocompetent patients and 27 organ transplant recipients SCC and BCC showed unequivocal positive PUMA expression, however, there was no significant difference in NMSC between organ transplant recipients and immunocompetent patients. A 17% reduction in staining score for PUMA in SCC, but not in BCC, of organ transplant recipients treated with a cyclosporin (CsA)-containing regimen was noted compared to organ transplant recipients without chronic CsA intake (p = 0.0381) PUMA expression in SCC, but not BCC, is significantly reduced by CsA-containing therapy, suggesting a disturbance of apoptosis by iatrogenic immunosuppression with a divergent impact on SCC and BCC.

Inpatient Management of Mucocutaneous GVHD.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is an immune mediated disorder affecting 30 - 70% of patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT), and is a major cause of morbidity and non-relapse mortality (NRM) [1]. Dermatologists play a critical role in acute and chronic GVHD, as skin involvement is common and often the earliest involved site of disease [2]. RECENT FINDINGS: GVHD shares clinical and histopathological features with a variety of other skin diseases, requiring thorough consideration of differential diagnoses in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients with lesions suggestive of cutaneous GVHD. Treatment considerations for GVHD are influenced by factors such as disease classification, overall grading, organ involvement, associated symptoms, and immunological anti-tumor effect. Several treatments are available and may be indicated as monotherapy or adjuvant therapy to allow faster withdrawal or tapering of immunosuppression. While corticosteroids are often first line therapy, oral ruxolitinib has been recently approved for treatment of steroid-refractory aGHVD, and oral ibrutinib has been approved for steroid-refractory cGHVD. SUMMARY: This article provides current clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic considerations relevant to the hospitalist for both acute and chronic mucocutaneous GVHD. Optimal inpatient management of these diseases requires an interdisciplinary team.

Targeted Therapy in Advanced Melanoma With Rare BRAF Mutations.

PURPOSE: BRAF/MEK inhibition is a standard of care for patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutated metastatic melanoma. For patients with less frequent BRAF mutations, however, efficacy data are limited. METHODS: In the current study, 103 patients with metastatic melanoma with rare, activating non-V600E/K BRAF mutations that were treated with either a BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi), MEK inhibitor (MEKi), or the combination were included. BRAF mutation, patient and disease characteristics, response, and survival data were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patient tumors (56%) harbored a non-E/K V600 mutation, 38 (37%) a non-V600 mutation, and seven had both V600E and a rare BRAF mutation (7%). The most frequent mutations were V600R (43%; 44 of 103), L597P/Q/R/S (15%; 15 of 103), and K601E (11%; 11 of 103). Most patients had stage IV disease and 42% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase at BRAFi/MEKi initiation. Most patients received combined BRAFi/MEKi (58%) or BRAFi monotherapy (37%). Of the 58 patients with V600 mutations, overall response rate to BRAFi monotherapy and combination BRAFi/MEKi was 27% (six of 22) and 56% (20 of 36), respectively, whereas median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months and 8.0 months, respectively (P = .002). Of the 38 patients with non-V600 mutations, overall response rate was 0% (zero of 15) to BRAFi, 40% (two of five) to MEKi, and 28% (five of 18) to combination treatment, with a median PFS of 1.8 months versus 3.7 months versus 3.3 months, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed superior survival (PFS and overall survival) with combination over monotherapy in rare V600 and non-V600 mutated melanoma. CONCLUSION: Patients with rare BRAF mutations can respond to targeted therapy, however, efficacy seems to be lower compared with V600E mutated melanoma. Combination BRAFi/MEKi seems to be the best regimen for both V600 and non-V600 mutations. Yet interpretation should be done with care because of the heterogeneity of patients with small sample sizes for some of the reported mutations.