Large-vessel vasculitis possibly induced by BRAF and MEK inhibitors for BRAF V600E positive lung adenocarcinoma.

The combination therapy of v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) and mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors is approved for treating patients with BRAF V600E-positive tumours, including melanoma and lung cancer. Several case reports indicated autoimmune side effects associated with the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Still, the effects of these drugs on the immune system were not fully elucidated. Here, we report a patient with large-vessel vasculitis diagnosed after initiation of treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib for BRAF V600E-positive metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. She was a never-smoker woman in her early 70s who presented with a chronic cough and was diagnosed with BRAF V600E-positive metastatic lung adenocarcinoma by transbronchial lung biopsy. She was successfully treated with prednisolone and methotrexate while BRAF and MEK inhibitors were continued. We should be careful about autoimmune diseases using BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

The safety and efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib in patients with glioma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dabrafenib and trametinib represent targeted therapy options under investigation for treatment of gliomas harboring BRAF V600 mutations. We systematically reviewed the literature and conducted meta-analyses to assess the efficacy and safety of these agents. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to September 2023 for studies examining dabrafenib and/or trametinib for gliomas. Outcomes included response rates (ORR, CR, PR), progression rates (PD), 6- and 12-month PFS, adverse events, and dosing modifications. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effect models. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis demonstrated overall response rates (ORR) of 50% (95% confidence interval (CI): 35-65%) for low-grade gliomas (LGG) and 40% (95% CI: 29-51%) for high-grade gliomas (HGG). Pooled ORR was 45% (95% CI: 36-54%) for both glioma grades. The complete response rate was 13% (95% CI: 05-27%) for HGG and 5% (95% CI: 1-10%) for both LGG and HGG. Six-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates reached 87% in LGG and 67% in HGG and a pooled 6-month PFS 78% (95% CI: 58-98%), declining at 12 months to 67% and 44%, respectively, with a pooled 12-month PFS 56% (95% CI: 34-79%). Grade 1-4 adverse events occurred in 100% of LGG and 63% of HGG patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib and trametinib demonstrate promising anti-tumor efficacy in gliomas, particularly low-grade tumors, achieving durable disease stabilization in many patients. However, toxicity significantly limited tolerability. Additional research should further examine efficacy and refine safe administration protocols across glioma subtypes.

A phase 1 study of triple-targeted therapy with BRAF, MEK, and AKT inhibitors for patients with BRAF-mutated cancers.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant PI3K/AKT signaling in BRAF-mutant cancers contributes to resistance to BRAF inhibitors. The authors examined dual MAPK and PI3K pathway inhibition in patients who had BRAF-mutated solid tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01902173). METHODS: Patients with BRAF V600E/V600K-mutant solid tumors received oral dabrafenib at 150 mg twice daily with dose escalation of oral uprosertib starting at 50 mg daily, or, in the triplet cohorts, with dose escalation of both oral trametinib starting at 1.5 mg daily and oral uprosertib starting at 25 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed within the first 56 days of treatment. Radiographic responses were assessed at 8-week intervals. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (22 evaluable) were enrolled in parallel doublet and triplet cohorts. No DLTs were observed in the doublet cohorts (N = 7). One patient had a DLT at the maximum administered dose of triplet therapy (dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and trametinib 2 mg daily plus uprosertib 75 mg daily). Three patients in the doublet cohorts had partial responses (including one who had BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma). Two patients in the triplet cohorts had a partial response, and one patient had an unconfirmed partial response. Pharmacokinetic data suggested reduced dabrafenib and dabrafenib metabolite exposure in patients who were also exposed to both trametinib and uprosertib, but not in whose who were exposed to uprosertib without trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant inhibition of both the MAPK and PI3K-AKT pathways for the treatment of BRAF-mutated cancers was well tolerated, leading to objective responses, but higher level drug-drug interactions affected exposure to dabrafenib and its metabolites.

BRAF - a tumour-agnostic drug target with lineage-specific dependencies.

In June 2022, the FDA granted Accelerated Approval to the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib in combination with the MEK inhibitor trametinib for the treatment of adult and paediatric patients (≥6 years of age) with unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600E-mutant solid tumours, except for BRAFV600E-mutant colorectal cancers. The histology-agnostic approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib marks the culmination of two decades of research into the landscape of BRAF mutations in human cancers, the biochemical mechanisms underlying BRAF-mediated tumorigenesis, and the clinical development of selective RAF and MEK inhibitors. Although the majority of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant tumours derive clinical benefit from BRAF inhibitor-based combinations, resistance to treatment develops in most. In this Review, we describe the biochemical basis for oncogenic BRAF-induced activation of MAPK signalling and pan-cancer and lineage-specific mechanisms of intrinsic, adaptive and acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors. We also discuss novel RAF inhibitors and drug combinations designed to delay the emergence of treatment resistance and/or expand the population of patients with BRAF-mutant cancers who benefit from molecularly targeted therapies.

Dabrafenib and trametinib in Langerhans cell histiocytosis and other histiocytic disorders.

The standard treatment for Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is chemotherapy, although the failure rates are high. Since MAP-kinase activating mutations are found in most cases, BRAF- and MEK-inhibitors have been used successfully to treat patients with refractory or relapsed disease. However, data on long-term responses in children are limited and there are no data on the use of these inhibitors as first-line therapy. We treated 34 patients (26 with LCH, 2 with juvenile xanthogranuloma, 2 with Rosai-Dorfman disease, and 4 with presumed single site-central nervous system histiocytosis) with dabrafenib and/or trametinib, either as first line or after relapse or failure of chemotherapy. Sixteen patients, aged 1.3-21 years, had disease that was recurrent or refractory to chemotherapy, nine of whom had multisystem LCH with risk-organ involvement. With a median treatment duration of 4.3 years, 15 (94%) patients have sustained favorable responses. Eighteen patients, aged 0.2-45 years, received an inhibitor as first-line treatment. All of these have had sustained favorable responses, with a median treatment duration of 2.5 years. Three patients with presumed isolated central nervous system/pituitary stalk histiocytosis had stabilization or improvement of their disease. Overall, inhibitors were well tolerated. Five patients with single-system LCH discontinued therapy and remain off therapy without recurrence. In contrast, all four patients with multisystem disease who discontinued therapy had to restart treatment. Our data suggest that children suffering from histiocytoses can be treated safely and effectively with dabrafenib or trametinib. Additional studies are, however, needed to determine the long-term safety and optimal duration of therapy.

Outcomes in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma and brain metastases at baseline treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels above the upper limit of normal (ULN) are associated with poor prognosis in patients with melanoma. Although treatment with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib have demonstrated long-term clinical benefit in patients with melanoma, data on their efficacy in patients with BM are limited. METHODS: DESCRIBE Italy is an observational, retrospective, real-world study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in 499 patients with BRAFV600-mutant stage III unresectable or stage IV melanoma from various sites across Italy. Here, we analyzed the clinical outcomes for the subgroup of patients receiving first-line treatment and presenting with BM at diagnosis and assessed the impact of predictive factors such as LDH levels and the presence of other metastases on median progression-free survival (mPFS). RESULTS: Overall, 325 evaluable patients were on first-line therapy and are the focus of this analysis; of these, 76 patients (23.4%) had BM at baseline. mPFS was lower for patients with BM at baseline compared with overall patients (8.7 months vs 9.3 months, respectively). Patients with BM at diagnosis and LDH >ULN had a considerably shorter mPFS compared with patients with LDH ⩽ULN (5.3 months vs 9.9 months, respectively). mPFS was noticeably longer for patients with cerebral metastases only compared with patients with cerebral and other metastases (15.0 months vs 8.7 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed effectiveness in a real-world population of patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma and BM at baseline, supporting its use in this population with poor outcomes.

A Phase II Redifferentiation Trial with Dabrafenib-Trametinib and 131I in Metastatic Radioactive Iodine Refractory BRAF p.V600E-Mutated Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib-131I for the treatment of radioactive iodine refractory metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) with a BRAF p.V600E mutation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective phase II trial including patients with RECIST progression within 18 months and no lesion > 3 cm. Following a baseline recombinant human (rh)TSH-stimulated diagnostic whole-body scan (dc1-WBS), dabrafenib and trametinib were given for 42 days. A second rhTSH-stimulated dc WBS (dc2-WBS) was done at day 28 and 131I (5.5 GBq-150 mCi after rhTSH) was administered at day 35. Primary endpoint was the 6-month RECIST objective response rate. In case of partial response (PR) at 6 or 12 months, a second treatment course could be given. Among 24 enrolled patients, 21 were evaluable at 6 months. RESULTS: Abnormal 131I uptake was present on 5%, 65%, and 95% of the dc1-WBS, dc2-WBS, and post-therapy scans, respectively. At 6 months, PR was achieved in 38%, stable disease in 52%, and progressive disease (PD) in 10%. Ten patients received a second treatment course: one complete response and 6 PRs were observed at 6 months. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached. The 12- and 24-month PFS were 82% and 68%, respectively. One death due to PD occurred at 24 months. Adverse events (AE) occurred in 96% of the patients, with 10 grade 3-4 AEs in 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib-trametinib is effective in BRAF p.V600E-mutated DTC patients for restoring 131I uptake with PR observed 6 months after 131I administration in 38% of the patients.

Dose-escalation trial of combination dabrafenib, trametinib, and AT13387 in patients with BRAF-mutant solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is an active regimen in patients who have BRAF V600E-mutated tumors; however, the clinical efficacy of this therapy is limited by resistance. Preclinically, the addition of heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibition improves the efficacy of BRAF inhibitor therapy in both BRAF inhibitor-sensitive and BRAF inhibitor-resistant mutant cell lines. METHODS: Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program study 9557 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02097225) is a phase 1 study that was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the small-molecule HSP90 inhibitor, AT13387, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAF V600E/K-mutant solid tumors. Correlative analyses evaluated the expression of HSP90 client proteins and chaperones. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with metastatic, BRAF V600E-mutant solid tumors were enrolled using a 3 + 3 design at four dose levels, and 21 patients were evaluable for efficacy assessment. The most common tumor type was colorectal cancer (N = 12). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in one patient at dose level 3 and in one patient at dose level 4; specifically, myelosuppression and fatigue, respectively. The maximum tolerated dose was oral dabafenib 150 mg twice daily, oral trametinib 2 mg once daily, and intravenous AT13387 260 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15. The best response was a partial response in two patients and stable disease in eight patients, with an overall response rate of 9.5% (90% exact confidence interval [CI], 2%-27%), a disease control rate of 47.6% (90% CI, 29%-67%), and a median overall survival of 5.1 months (90% CI, 3.4-7.6 months). There were no consistent proteomic changes associated with response or resistance, although responders did have reductions in BRAF expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor downregulation using HSP90 inhibition was observed in one patient who had colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: HSP90 inhibition combined with BRAF/MEK inhibition was safe and produced evidence of modest disease control in a heavily pretreated population. Additional translational work may identify tumor types and resistance mechanisms that are most sensitive to this approach.

Efficacy and Safety of Trametinib Monotherapy or in Combination With Dabrafenib in Pediatric BRAF V600-Mutant Low-Grade Glioma.

PURPOSE: BRAF V600 mutations occur in many childhood cancers, including approximately 20% of low-grade gliomas (LGGs). Here, we describe a phase I/II study establishing pediatric dosing and pharmacokinetics of trametinib with or without dabrafenib, as well as efficacy and safety in a disease-specific cohort with BRAF V600-mutant LGG; other cohorts will be reported elsewhere. METHODS: This is a four-part, phase I/II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02124772) in patients age < 18 years with relapsed/refractory malignancies: trametinib monotherapy dose finding (part A) and disease-specific expansion (part B), and dabrafenib + trametinib dose finding (part C) and disease-specific expansion (part D). The primary objective assessed in all patients in parts A and C was to determine pediatric dosing on the basis of steady-state pharmacokinetics. Disease-specific efficacy and safety (across parts A-D) were secondary objectives. RESULTS: Overall, 139 patients received trametinib (n = 91) or dabrafenib + trametinib (n = 48). Trametinib dose-limiting toxicities in > 1 patient (part A) included mucosal inflammation (n = 3) and hyponatremia (n = 2). There were no dose-limiting toxicities with combination therapy (part C). The recommended phase II dose of trametinib, with or without dabrafenib, was 0.032 mg/kg once daily for patients age < 6 years and 0.025 mg/kg once daily for patients age ≥ 6 years; dabrafenib dosing in the combination was as previously identified for monotherapy. In 49 patients with BRAF V600-mutant glioma (LGG, n = 47) across all four study parts, independently assessed objective response rates were 15% (95% CI, 1.9 to 45.4) for monotherapy (n = 13) and 25% (95% CI, 12.1 to 42.2) for combination (n = 36). Adverse event-related treatment discontinuations were more common with monotherapy (54% v 22%). CONCLUSION: The trial design provided efficient evaluation of pediatric dosing, safety, and efficacy of single-agent and combination targeted therapy. Age-based and weight-based dosing of trametinib with or without dabrafenib achieved target concentrations with manageable safety and demonstrated clinical efficacy and tolerability in BRAF V600-mutant LGG.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600E mutation-positive hairy cell leukemia.

BRAF V600E is the key oncogenic driver mutation in hairy cell leukemia (HCL). We report the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600E mutation-positive HCL. This open-label, phase 2 study enrolled patients with BRAF V600E mutation-positive HCL refractory to first-line treatment with a purine analog or relapsed after ≥2 prior lines of treatment. Patients received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per criteria adapted from National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Consensus Resolution guidelines. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Fifty-five patients with BRAF V600E mutation-positive HCL were enrolled. The investigator-assessed ORR was 89.0% (95% confidence interval, 77.8%-95.9%); 65.5% of patients had a complete response (without minimal residual disease [MRD]: 9.1% [negative immunohistochemistry of bone marrow {BM} biopsy], 12.7% [negative BM aspirate flow cytometry {FC}], 16.4% [negative immunohistochemistry and/or FC results]; with MRD, 49.1%), and 23.6% had a partial response. The 24-month DOR was 97.7% with 24-month PFS and OS rates of 94.4% and 94.5%, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events were pyrexia (58.2%), chills (47.3%), and hyperglycemia (40.0%). Dabrafenib plus trametinib demonstrated durable responses with a manageable safety profile consistent with previous observations in other indications and should be considered as a rituximab-free therapeutic option for patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600E mutation-positive HCL. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02034110.

A distinct four-value blood signature of pyrexia under combination therapy of malignant melanoma with dabrafenib and trametinib evidenced by an algorithm-defined pyrexia score.

Pyrexia is a frequent adverse event of BRAF/MEK-inhibitor combination therapy in patients with metastasized malignant melanoma (MM). The study's objective was to identify laboratory changes which might correlate with the appearance of pyrexia. Initially, data of 38 MM patients treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib, of which 14 patients developed pyrexia, were analysed retrospectively. Graphical visualization of time series of laboratory values suggested that a rise in C-reactive-protein, in parallel with a fall of leukocytes and thrombocytes, were indicative of pyrexia. Additionally, statistical analysis showed a significant correlation between lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and pyrexia. An algorithm based on these observations was designed using a deductive and heuristic approach in order to calculate a pyrexia score (PS) for each laboratory assessment in treated patients. A second independent data set of 28 MM patients, 8 with pyrexia, was used for the validation of the algorithm. PS based on the four parameters CRP, LDH, leukocyte and thrombocyte numbers, were statistically significantly higher in pyrexia patients, differentiated between groups (F = 20.8; p = <0.0001) and showed a significant predictive value for the diagnosis of pyrexia (F = 6.24; p = 0.013). We provide first evidence that pyrexia in patients treated with BRAF/MEK-blockade can be identified by an algorithm that calculates a score.

Dabrafenib Versus Dabrafenib + Trametinib in BRAF-Mutated Radioactive Iodine Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Results of a Randomized, Phase 2, Open-Label Multicenter Trial.

Background: Oncogenic BRAF mutations are commonly found in advanced differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), and reports have shown efficacy of BRAF inhibitors in these tumors. We investigated the difference in response between dabrafenib monotherapy and dabrafenib + trametinib therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated radioactive iodine refractory DTC. Methods: In this open-label randomized phase 2 multicenter trial, patients aged ≥18 years with BRAF-mutated radioactive iodine refractory DTC with progressive disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 within 13 months before enrollment were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib alone or dabrafenib + trametinib. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by modified RECIST (minor response of -20% to -29%, partial and complete response) within the first 24 weeks of therapy. Trial Registration Number: NCT01723202. Results: A total of 53 patients were enrolled. The objective response rate (modified RECIST) was 42% (11/26 [95% confidence interval {CI} 23-63%]) with dabrafenib versus 48% (13/27 [CI 29-68%]) with dabrafenib + trametinib (p = 0.67). Objective response rate (RECIST 1.1) was 35% (9/26 [CI 17-56%]) with dabrafenib and 30% (8/27 [CI 14-51%]) with dabrafenib + trametinib. Most common treatment-related adverse events included skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (17/26, 65%), fever (13/26, 50%), hyperglycemia (12/26, 46%) with dabrafenib alone and fever (16/27, 59%), nausea, chills, fatigue (14/27, 52% each) with dabrafenib + trametinib. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Combination dabrafenib + trametinib was not superior in efficacy compared to dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF-mutated radioiodine refractory progressive DTC.

Immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy with anti-signal recognition particle antibodies, in a patient with melanoma treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

The effect of serine/threonine-protein kinase B-Raf/mitogen-activated protein kinase (BRAF/MEK) inhibitors on the immune system is not clearly described, but rare cases of autoimmune phenomena have been reported. The clinical case we present below is the first report of a necrotizing myopathy related to dabrafenib/trametinib treatment. A 48-year-old man started dabrafenib/trametinib for stage IV BRAF-V600E mutated cutaneous melanoma. After the first month, he presented with grade 3 pyrexia (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] v.5.0.) and increased creatinine-kinase levels. A diagnosis of immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy, antisignal recognition particle (anit-SRP) positive, was made. At disease progression, dabrafenib/trametinib was restarted, triggering a new episode of grade 2 pyrexia and myositis. Treatment was changed to encorafenib/binimetinib without repeating pyrexia or limiting creatinine-kinase elevation, presenting even a loss of anti-SRP antibodies. Given the temporal relationship, the fact that re-exposition induced a new worsening of the myopathy and the loss of the anti-SRP antibodies after changing treatment, we infer that there possibly is a clear relationship between dabrafenib/trametinib treatment and the myopathy.

A lead-in safety study followed by a phase 2 clinical trial of dabrafenib, trametinib and hydroxychloroquine in advanced BRAFV600 mutant melanoma patients previously treated with BRAF-/MEK-inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Patients with advanced BRAFV600 mutant melanoma who progressed on prior treatment with BRAF-/MEK-inhibitors and programmed cell death 1 or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 immune checkpoint inhibitors can benefit from retreatment with the combination of a BRAF- and a MEK-inhibitor ('rechallenge'). Hydroxychloroquine can prevent autophagy-driven resistance and improve the efficacy of BRAF-/MEK-inhibitors in preclinical melanoma models. This clinical trial investigated the use of combined BRAF-/MEK-inhibition with dabrafenib and trametinib plus hydroxychloroquine in patients with advanced BRAFV600 mutant melanoma who previously progressed on prior treatment with BRAF-/MEK-inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Following a safety lead-in phase, patients were randomized in the phase 2 part of the trial between upfront treatment with dabrafenib, trametinib and hydroxychloroquine (experimental arm), or dabrafenib and trametinib, with the possibility to add-on hydroxychloroquine at the time of documented tumor progression (contemporary control arm). Ten and four patients were recruited to the experimental and contemporary control arm, respectively. The objective response rate was 20.0% and the disease control rate was 50.0% in the experimental arm, whereas no responses were observed before or after adding hydroxychloroquine in the contemporary control arm. No new safety signals were observed for dabrafenib and trametinib. Hydroxychloroquine was suspected of causing an anxiety/psychotic disorder in one patient. Based on an early negative evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio for adding hydroxychloroquine to dabrafenib and trametinib when 'rechallenging' BRAFV600mutant melanoma patients, recruitment to the trial was closed prematurely.

Dabrafenib- and trametinib-associated glomerular toxicity: A case report.

RATIONALE: Combined treatment with dabrafenib, a B-RAF inhibitor, and trametinib, a mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitor, is an effective option for patients with metastatic melanoma. A few cases of acute kidney injury associated with tubulointerstitial nephritis and 1 case of nephrotic syndrome have been reported in patients on this drug combination; however, progressive renal injury has not been reported. In this case study, we report a patient with metastatic melanoma who developed glomerular capillary endothelial toxicity and progressive glomerular sclerosis during combination therapy. PATIENT CONCERN: Our patient was an 80-year-old woman with a history of type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. DIAGNOSIS AND INTERVENTION: She was diagnosed with metastatic melanoma and commenced combination therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib. OUTCOMES: Her renal function progressively deteriorated; by month 20 after treatment commencement, her serum creatinine level had increased from 1.59 to 3.74 mg/dL. The first kidney biopsy revealed marked glomerular and endothelial cell damage. Her medication was stopped, but no improvement was evident. At 5 months after the first biopsy, her serum creatinine level had increased to 5.46 mg/dL; a second kidney biopsy revealed focal segmental glomerular sclerosis and marked tubulointerstitial fibrosis. She was started on hemodialysis. LESSONS: We describe a patient with a metastatic melanoma who developed progressive kidney failure during treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib. The most prominent microscopy findings were glomerular endothelial damage in the initial kidney biopsy and accelerated glomerular sclerosis and tubulointerstitial fibrosis in the follow-up biopsy. We hypothesize that a decreased renal reserve and impairment of kidney repair capacity caused by inhibition of B-RAF, a downstream mediator of vascular endothelial growth factor, may explain the progressive kidney injury.

Monitoring of plasma concentrations of dabrafenib and trametinib in advanced BRAFV600mut melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) improved survival in patients with BRAFV600mut melanoma. High plasma concentration of D (PCD) is weakly associated with adverse events (AE). We investigated the relationship between PCD/T and tumour control or AE. METHODS: We analysed PCD/T in patients treated with D+T for metastatic melanoma. We collected data of tumour response (RECIST 1.1) and AE (CTCAE 4.0) blinded to PCD/T results. RESULTS: We analysed 71 D and 58T assays from 34 patients. High inter-individual variability of PCD (median: 65.0ng/mL; interquartile range (IQR) [4-945]) and of PCT (median: 8.6ng/mL; IQR [5-39]) was observed. We found a weak relationship between PCD and progression-free survival, taking follow-up time into account (hazard ratio 0.991; 95%CI, 0.981 to 1.000; P=0.06). However, no difference was observed between mean PCD/T of progressing patients (n=21; 125±183ng/mL and 9.3±3.6ng/mL, respectively) and responders (complete, partial or stable response) (n=13; 159±225ng/mL, P=0.58 and 10.6±24.4ng/mL, P=0.29, respectively). No significant relationship was found between PCD/T and most common AEs (fever, lymphopenia, CPK increase, and hepatic cytolysis), body mass index, or age. Mean CPT (n=16) was significantly higher for female subjects (n=18; 11.5±4.8ng/mL) than for male subjects (8.8ng/mL±2.9, P=0.01), but no difference was observed between sex and CPD (P=0.32). CONCLUSION: Our study showed a weak relationship between PCD and progression-free survival, but no relationship between PCD/T and AE was found. Monitoring PCD and PCT alone is unlikely to be useful in assessing response to treatment.