BRAF L597K mutation: an opportunity to treat.

The outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma (MM) have significantly improved after the introduction of BRAF-specific inhibitors. Herein is reported a patient with MM and non-V600-BRAF mutation who responded to iBRAF/iMEK therapy. In July 2014, a 63-year-old man presented with a 4.1mm-thick V600E-BRAF wild type melanoma on the back. Metastases were identified in one sentinel node and two of 11 subsequently excised lymph nodes, with no signs of distant metastatic disease. In September 2017, lung metastasis was observed and pembrolizumab was started. Progressive disease was apparent at cycle 10 and therapy was switched to ipilimumab. After four cycles, an asymmetric response was observed. In November 2017, next generation sequencing genomic profiling disclosed a rare L597K-BRAF mutation and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib therapy was initiated in January 2018. Seven days after treatment start, a remarkable clinical improvement was observed. In April 2018, the patient achieved partial response, which was sustained until October 2018. Cases of patients with non-V600-BRAF mutations responding to iBRAF/iMEK therapy have been reported over the last years. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case reporting response to combined iBRAF/iMEK therapy in a patient with metastatic melanoma harboring L597K mutation.

Cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a comparative effectiveness study.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists regarding comparative effectiveness of cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a retrospective head-to-head multi-cohort study comparing clinical outcomes from both antibodies METHODS: Cohorts were defined by treatment line and subgroups by (K)RAS status and tumour sidedness. Among other outcomes, we estimated and compared response rates, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between January 2010 and April 2018, 311 patients were included. Except for (K)RAS mutation status, baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups. In the full analysis of first and second-line cohorts, PFS (first-line: HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.13; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.83; P = 0.51) and OS (first-line: HR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; P = 0.58) were similar between bevacizumab and cetuximab arms. In subgroup analyses of first-line therapy, we found a survival difference favouring bevacizumab in right-sided tumours (PFS: HR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; P = 0.025; OS: HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.12; P = 0.11), but not in left-sided (HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.46; P = 0.81; OS: HR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.36; P = 0.74), or (K)RAS wild-type tumours (PFS: HR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40; P = 0.67; OS: HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25; P = 0.31). Response rates were similar across treatment groups, except for the subgroup of patients bearing right-sided primaries, where bevacizumab performed substantially better. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence suggesting bevacizumab and cetuximab lead to similar effectiveness outcomes in mCRC, except for right-sided tumours, where cetuximab seemed to show considerably poorer outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these results.

Patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life for cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists regarding Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab. We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing PROs and HRQoL from both therapies. METHODS: We assessed PROs and HRQoL from patients treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires at three sequential time points, including baseline. Global Health Status (GHS), functional and symptom scales, and Overall Treatment Utility (derived from clinical and patient-reported outcomes) were compared for the two treatment strategies. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and April 2018, 44 patients were allocated to cetuximab (n = 19) or bevacizumab (n = 25). Except for RAS mutation status, patient baseline characteristics were generally well balanced across treatment groups. A higher proportion of patients experienced a deterioration in GHS (≥ 10%) in cetuximab arm - 53.8% (95% CI 25.1-80.8%) at 6 weeks and 66.7% (95% CI 29.9-92.5%) at 12 weeks-comparing to bevacizumab cohort: 18.2% (95% CI 5.2-40.3%) at 6 weeks and 12.5% (95% CI:1.6-38.3%) at 12 weeks. Treatment utility rates at 6 and 12 weeks were, respectively, 88.6% and 69.8% for bevacizumab, compared to 49% and 19.1% for cetuximab (p = 0.004), a difference confirmed in subset analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mCRC, cetuximab-containing regimens led to a progressive negative impact on PROs and global HRQoL, when compared to baseline and bevacizumab. Future research is needed to confirm these results. Our findings demonstrate the value of PROs when assessing comparative effectiveness of different treatment regimens.

Triplet (FOLFOXIRI) versus doublet (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) backbone chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Uncertainty exists regarding the comparative effectiveness of triplet chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI) as backbone first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triplet versus doublet chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy in mCRC. Methods and reporting followed PRISMA and SAMPL guidelines. Eight RCTs were included, comprising 1732 patients. In pooled analysis, FOLFOXIRI was associated with improvements in efficacy outcomes, notably with a 25% survival increase (95%CI: 10-37%). FOLFOXIRI was also associated with increased toxicity, with a non-significant 25% increase in the risk of patients experiencing grade ≥3 adverse events (95% CI: -3 to 61%) and with a 1.83 (95% CI: 1.62-2.07) increase in the rate ratio of grade ≥3 adverse events. Moderate quality evidence suggests that first-line FOLFOXIRI provides clinically meaningful efficacy benefits in this setting, at the expense of increased toxicity. Further research is warranted to better characterize safety and to evaluate the most beneficial combination with targeted agents.