COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff). METHODS: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed. RESULTS: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

Single agent vemurafenib or rituximab-vemurafenib combination for the treatment of relapsed/refractory hairy cell leukemia, a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) is a rare mature B-cell malignancy that is primarily treated with purine analogues. However, relapse remains a significant challenge, prompting the search for alternative therapies. The BRAF V600E mutation prevalent in HCL patients provides a target for treatment with vemurafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included nine patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) HCL from six different centers. Patient data included demographics, prior treatments, clinical outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS: Patients received different treatment regimens between centers, including vemurafenib alone or in combination with rituximab. Despite the differences in protocols, all patients achieved at least a partial response, with seven patients achieving a complete response. Adverse events were generally mild with manageable side effects. The absence of myelotoxic effects and manageable side effects make BRAF inhibitors attractive, especially for patients ineligible for purine analogues or those with severe neutropenia. CONCLUSION: Single agent vemurafenib or in combination with rituximab appears to be a promising therapeutic option for R/R HCL. Further research is needed to establish standardized treatment protocols and to investigate long-term outcomes.

Contribution of MEK Inhibition to BRAF/MEK Inhibitor Combination Treatment of BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: Part 2 of the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III COLUMBUS Trial.

PURPOSE: In COLUMBUS part 1, patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice a day (COMBO450), vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day, or encorafenib 300 mg once daily (ENCO300). As previously reported, COMBO450 improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus vemurafenib (part 1 primary end point) and ENCO300 (part 1 key secondary end point; not statistically significant). Part 2, requested by the US Food and Drug Administration, evaluated the contribution of binimetinib by maintaining the same encorafenib dosage in the combination (encorafenib 300 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [COMBO300]) and ENCO300 arms. METHODS: In part 2, patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to COMBO300 or ENCO300. ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) data were combined, per protocol, for PFS analysis (key secondary end point) by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Other analyses included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients received COMBO300, and 86 received ENCO300. Per protocol, ENCO300 arms (parts 1 and 2 combined) were also evaluated (n = 280). The median follow-up for ENCO300 was 40.8 months (part 1) and 57.1 months (part 2). The median PFS (95% CI) was 12.9 months (10.9 to 14.9) for COMBO300 versus 9.2 months (7.4 to 11.1) for ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2) and 7.4 months (5.6 to 9.2) for ENCO300 (part 2). The hazard ratio (95% CI) for COMBO300 was 0.74 (0.60 to 0.92; two-sided P = .003) versus ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2). The ORR by BIRC (95% CI) was 68% (62 to 74) and 51% (45 to 57) for COMBO300 and ENCO300 (parts 1 and 2), respectively. COMBO300 had greater relative dose intensity and fewer grade 3/4 adverse events than ENCO300. CONCLUSION: COMBO300 improved PFS, ORR, and tolerability compared with ENCO300, confirming the contribution of binimetinib to efficacy and safety.

BRAF-MEK Inhibition in Newly Diagnosed Papillary Craniopharyngiomas.

BACKGROUND: Craniopharyngiomas, primary brain tumors of the pituitary-hypothalamic axis, can cause clinically significant sequelae. Treatment with the use of surgery, radiation, or both is often associated with substantial morbidity related to vision loss, neuroendocrine dysfunction, and memory loss. Genotyping has shown that more than 90% of papillary craniopharyngiomas carry BRAF V600E mutations, but data are lacking with regard to the safety and efficacy of BRAF-MEK inhibition in patients with papillary craniopharyngiomas who have not undergone previous radiation therapy. METHODS: Eligible patients who had papillary craniopharyngiomas that tested positive for BRAF mutations, had not undergone radiation therapy previously, and had measurable disease received the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination vemurafenib-cobimetinib in 28-day cycles. The primary end point of this single-group, phase 2 study was objective response at 4 months as determined with the use of centrally determined volumetric data. RESULTS: Of the 16 patients in the study, 15 (94%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 100) had a durable objective partial response or better to therapy. The median reduction in the volume of the tumor was 91% (range, 68 to 99). The median follow-up was 22 months (95% CI, 19 to 30) and the median number of treatment cycles was 8. Progression-free survival was 87% (95% CI, 57 to 98) at 12 months and 58% (95% CI, 10 to 89) at 24 months. Three patients had disease progression during follow-up after therapy had been discontinued; none have died. The sole patient who did not have a response stopped treatment after 8 days owing to toxic effects. Grade 3 adverse events that were at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 12 patients, including rash in 6 patients. In 2 patients, grade 4 adverse events (hyperglycemia in 1 patient and increased creatine kinase levels in 1 patient) were reported; 3 patients discontinued treatment owing to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this small, single-group study involving patients with papillary craniopharyngiomas, 15 of 16 patients had a partial response or better to the BRAF-MEK inhibitor combination vemurafenib-cobimetinib. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03224767.).

COLUMBUS 5-year update: a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Here, we summarize the 5-year results from part 1 of the COLUMBUS clinical study, which looked at the combination treatment of encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a specific type of skin cancer called melanoma. Encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®) are medicines used to treat a type of melanoma that has a change in the BRAF gene, called advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. Participants with advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma took either encorafenib plus binimetinib together (COMBO group), compared with encorafenib alone (ENCO group) or vemurafenib (ZELBORAF®) alone (VEMU group). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this 5-year update, more participants in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse after 5 years than those in the VEMU and ENCO groups. Patients in the COMBO group were alive for longer without their disease getting worse when they: Had less advanced cancer Were able to do more daily activities Had normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels Had fewer organs with tumors before treatment After treatment, fewer participants in the COMBO group received additional anticancer treatment than participants in the VEMU and ENCO groups. The number of participants who reported severe side effects was similar for each treatment. The side effects caused by the drugs in the COMBO group decreased over time. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Overall, this 5-year update confirmed that people with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma that has spread to other parts of the body and who took encorafenib plus binimetinib were alive for longer without their disease getting worse than those who took vemurafenib or encorafenib alone. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01909453 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted treatment in combination as adjuvant treatment of patient with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted treatments have improved the health outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma. However, due to the high cost of novel therapies, it is crucial to evaluate their value by considering both effectiveness and cost. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents (atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, vemurafenib-plus-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and encorafenib-plus-binimetinib) for first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma with the BRAFV600 mutation. METHODS: A patient-level model was developed to project the health outcomes of 4 strategies for patients with advanced melanoma. We estimated transition probabilities from the IMspire150 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672), COMBI-AD (NCT01682083), and COLUMBUS (NCT01909453) trials using a parametric survival model. All health outcomes, including direct cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), were estimated from the US payer perspective. Lifetime cost, QALYs, life-years (LYs), and ICERs were calculated. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness, along with multiple scenario analyses. RESULTS: Of the 4 competing strategies, atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib produced the best health outcomes, and the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy was the least expensive option. Atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and vemurafenib-cobimetinib formed the cost-effective frontier, indicating that the ordered ICERs were $325,113/QALYs for dabrafenib-plus-trametinib vs. vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategies and $2,247,500/QALYs for atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib vs. dabrafenib-plus-trametinib strategies. Encorafenib-plus-binimetinib was dominated by the other 3 competing strategies. The drug price and first-line utility significantly influenced the model utcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma, the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy could be considered the most cost-effective treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000.

Overall survival with first-line atezolizumab in combination with vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma (IMspire150): second interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Primary analysis of the phase 3 IMspire150 study showed improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival with first-line atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. With a median follow-up of 18·9 months (IQR 10·4-23·8) at the primary analysis, overall survival data were immature. Here, we report the results from the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis. METHODS: The multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 IMspire150 study was done at 108 academic and community hospitals in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated unresectable stage IIIc or stage IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously on day 1 and 15) or placebo plus vemurafenib (960 mg or 720 mg twice daily orally) and cobimetinib (60 mg once daily orally; 21 days on and 7 days off) in 28-day cycles. Atezolizumab and placebo were added to treatment regimens from cycle two onwards. Randomisation was done centrally (Durham, NC, USA) based on a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of 4) using an interactive web-based response system and was stratified by geographical region and baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration. Overall survival was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug according to actual treatment received. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which was previously reported. Here, we report the second, prespecified, interim overall survival analysis, which was planned after about 270 overall survival events had occurred. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer enrolling patients, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2017, and April 26, 2018, 514 patients (median age 54 years [IQR 43-63]; 299 [58%] men and 215 [42%] women) were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group (256 [50%] patients) or the control group (258 [50%] patients). At the data cutoff (Sept 8, 2021), 273 patients had died (126 in the atezolizumab group and 147 in the control group). Median follow-up was 29·1 months (IQR 10·1-45·4) for the atezolizumab group versus 22·8 months (10·6-44·1) for the control group. Median overall survival was 39·0 months (95% CI 29·9-not estimable) in the atezolizumab group versus 25·8 months (22·0-34·6) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·66-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events of any grade in the atezolizumab group were blood creatine phosphokinase increased (123 [53%] of 231 patients), diarrhoea (116 [50%]), and pyrexia (115 [50%]). The most common adverse events of any grade in the control group were diarrhoea (157 [56%] of 280 patients), blood creatine phosphokinase increased (135 [48%]), and rash (119 [43%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were increased lipase (54 [23%] of 231 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 62 [22%] of 280 patients in the control group), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (51 [22%] vs 50 [18%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [14%] vs 26 [9%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 112 (48%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 117 (42%) patients in the control group. Grade 5 adverse events were reported in eight (3%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus six (2%) patients in the control group. Two grade 5 adverse events (hepatitis fulminant and hepatic failure) in the atezolizumab group were considered to be associated with the triplet combination, and one event in the control group (pulmonary haemorrhage) was considered to be associated with cobimetinib. INTERPRETATION: Additional follow-up of the IMspire150 trial showed that overall survival was not significantly improved with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib compared with placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Results of the final analysis are awaited to establish whether a significant improvement in overall survival can be achieved with long-term treatment with this triplet combination versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

[Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome in the setting of vemurafenib therapy for metastatic melanoma: a case report].

A 53-year-old female patient complained of 1 week of bilateral visual blurring. She was previously diagnosed with metastatic melanoma of the inguinal lymph nodes and treated with the oral targeted drug vemurafenib. She exhibited aqueous flare in the left eye, and her fundus examination revealed optic disc swelling in the left eye and bilateral serious detachment of the retinal neuroepithelial layer. Fluorescein angiography showed multiple pinpoint hyperfluorescence leakage spots in the prometaphase and appeared as multilobular dye pooling in the late phase. We diagnosed her as Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome and gave glucocorticoid treatment for eyes. Oral vemurafenib was also taken intermittently under the guidance of an oncologist. After treatment, her bilateral vision improved, the anterior segment inflammation disappeared, and the retinal neuroepithelial layer reattached, with presence of the "sunset glow" fundus.

Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases (TRICOTEL): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy and immunotherapy have shown intracranial activity in melanoma with CNS metastases, but there remains an unmet need, particularly for patients with symptomatic CNS metastases. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab in combination with cobimetinib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in patients with melanoma with CNS metastases. METHODS: TRICOTEL was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done in two cohorts: a BRAFV600 wild-type cohort and a BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, recruited at 21 hospitals and oncology centres in Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, CNS metastases of 5 mm or larger in at least one dimension, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less. Patients in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21). Patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort received intravenous atezolizumab (840 mg, days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus oral vemurafenib (720 mg twice daily) plus oral cobimetinib (60 mg once daily, days 1-21); atezolizumab was withheld in cycle 1. Treatment was continued until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary outcome was intracranial objective response rate confirmed by assessments at least 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Because of early closure of the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort, the primary endpoint of intracranial objective response rate by IRC assessment was not done in this cohort; intracranial objective response rate by investigator assessment was reported instead. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03625141. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2018, and Dec 7, 2020, 65 patients were enrolled in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort; the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort was closed early after enrolment of 15 patients. Median follow-up was 9·7 months (IQR 6·3-15·0) for the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 6·2 months (3·5-23·0) for the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Intracranial objective response rate was 42% (95% CI 29-54) by IRC assessment in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and 27% (95% CI 8-55) by investigator assessment in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 41 (68%) of 60 patients who received atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort, the most common of which were lipase increased (15 [25%] of 60 patients) and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (ten [17%]). Eight (53%) of 15 patients treated with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort had treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, most commonly anaemia (two [13%]) and dermatitis acneiform (two [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 14 (23%) of 60 patients in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort and two (13%) of 15 in the BRAFV600 wild-type cohort. One death in the BRAFV600 mutation-positive cohort (limbic encephalitis) was considered to be related to atezolizumab treatment. INTERPRETATION: Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib provided promising intracranial activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma with CNS metastases. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Survival in adult patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma: a noninterventional ambispective study of patients with cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib during the French early access program: MELANIS study.

Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib was available in France in 2015 through a 'Temporary Authorization for Use' program (TAU, preapproval access pending its marketing on 2016) for patients with v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1-mutant advanced melanoma. This study aimed to provide real-world outcomes in patients previously registered in this TAU. This noninterventional, ambispective, multicentre French study, conducted in patients previously registered in TAU, aimed to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and to describe the tolerability of the therapeutic combination. At first cobimetinib intake (in combination with vemurafenib), 88% of the 185 evaluable patients had disease stage IV (brain metastasis: 70% of them), 31% had elevated lactate dehydrogenases, and 10% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) index ≥2. Median OS was 16.1 months (95% CI, 12.5-20.7). Brain metastasis ( P < 0.001), ECOG index ≥2 ( P = 0.007), and hepatic impairment ( P = 0.037) were found as independent factors significantly associated with shorter survival. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.2-8.4). ECOG index ≥2 ( P = 0.006) was significantly associated with shorter PFS. Between cobimetinib start and inclusion, increased CPK (3% of patients), retinal serous detachment (3%), decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (3%), increased transaminases (3%), and rash (3%) were the most reported serious adverse events. This study provides real-world outcomes in France for the vemurafenib-cobimetinib combination available in patients with BRAF-mutant-advanced melanoma. Our data tend to confirm in the real-life setting that this combination therapy is effective in such patients, with a safety profile consistent with previous interventional studies.

Efficacy and toxicity of vemurafenib and cobimetinib in relation to plasma concentrations, after administration via feeding tube in patients with BRAF-mutated thyroid cancer: a case series and review of literature.

INTRODUCTION: The combination of vemurafenib, a proto-oncogene B-Raf inhibitor (BRAFi) and cobimetinib, an inhibitor of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEKi) has shown to improve survival in patients with BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. BRAF mutations are also frequently detected driver mutations in other tumor types, including thyroid carcinoma. Since thyroid carcinoma is not a labeled indication for BRAF/MEKi, a cohort for patients with BRAF V600-mutated thyroid carcinoma was opened within the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), a national ongoing pan-cancer multi-drug trial, in which patients receive off-label treatment with approved drugs based on their molecular tumor profile. RESULTS: Here, we present two patients with BRAF-mutated thyroid carcinoma, who were successfully treated with vemurafenib/cobimetinib administered via a feeding tube. Plasma concentrations of vemurafenib and cobimetinib were determined. A partial response was observed in both patients, but they experienced significant toxicity. CONCLUSION: Our cases show that vemurafenib/cobimetinib treatment is effective in BRAF V600-mutated thyroid carcinoma, also when administered via a feeding tube. Although serious side effects occurred in both patients, we hypothesize that this was not attributable to the administration route. Therefore, administration of vemurafenib/cobimetinib by feeding tube is feasible and effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial identification: NCT02925234.

Long-term vemurafenib therapy in advanced melanoma patients: cutaneous toxicity and prognostic implications.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of targeted therapies for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma was associated with different cutaneous adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: To describe the type, frequency and severity of cutaneous AEs related to vemurafenib; to understand the association between AEs and vemurafenib efficacy in terms of median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS); to identify molecular characteristics of long-term responders. METHODS: This observational, retrospective, monocentric study included all consecutive patients with unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma and BRAF V600E mutation that started treatment with vemurafenib between May 2012 and May 2014. RESULTS: 62 patients with a median age of 56 years (range 26-82) were enrolled and received vemurafenib for a median period of 7.9 months (range 0.8-63.7). Among them, 45 patients presented at least one skin AE, 12 reduced the dosage due to cutaneous toxicity, and only one firstly reduced and after stopped the therapy. No specific molecular biomarkers were detected in long-term survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Among long-term survivors, skin AEs seem to be less frequent and less severe. Results on multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of at least one G2 toxicity is a protective factor considering PFS, but not in terms of OS.

Post-Marketing Safety of Vemurafenib: A Real-World Pharmacovigilance Study of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.

PURPOSE: Vemurafenib received approval for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma in August 2011. This study analyzed Vemurafenib-related adverse events (AEs) to detect and characterize relevant safety signals using the real-word-data through the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: Disproportionality analyses, including the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA), the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and the multiitem gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms, were applied to quantify the signals of vemurafenib-related AEs. RESULTS: Out of 8,042,244 reports gathered from the FAERS, 9554 reports of vemurafenib as the 'primary suspected (PS)' AEs were recognized. Vemurafenib-induced AEs occurrence targeted 23 system organ class (SOC). A total of 138 significant disproportionality PTs was simultaneously reserved according to the four algorithms. Unexpected significant AEs such as sarcoidosis and kidney fibrosis might also occur. The median onset time of vemurafenib-related AEs was 26 days (interquartile range [IQR] 8-97 days), and most of the cases occurred within the first one and two months after vemurafenib initiation. CONCLUSION: Our study detected potential new AEs signals and might provide powerful support for clinical monitoring and risk identification of vemurafenib.

Unexpected cause of vemurafenib-induced nephrotoxicity: ferrochelatase.

Among v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 inhibitors, vemurafenib causes a higher incidence of nephrotoxicity. Bai et al. reported that vemurafenib-induced nephrotoxicity is not directly caused by viral oncogene homolog B1 inhibition but is partly caused by ferrochelatase inhibition in renal tubular epithelial cells. Because several other protein kinase inhibitors are also known to cause ferrochelatase inhibition, further studies are needed to elucidate the role of ferrochelatase in renal function and injury.

Uveitis associated with cancer immunotherapy: long-term outcomes.

Background: We report the long-term outcome of uveitis associated with cancer immunotherapy (CIT). Methods: This retrospective review included serial patients with CIT-associated uveitis treated using various regimen. Results: Eight patients treated with rituximab (anti-CD20), nivolumab (anti-PD-1), ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4), vemurafenib and dabrafenib (anti-BRAF), trametinib (anti-MEK) and ibritunib showed uveitis with hypopion (one patient), macular edema (five patients) and choroiditis (two patients). Various regimens of corticosteroid therapy showed a favorable ophthalmological outcome, whether the CIT was continuing or suspended. Conclusion: Local corticosteroid injections in combination with CIT could be suggested as a first-line treatment. This could help to preserve the quality of life without threatening the vital prognosis.

Lay abstract This study aims to report the long-term outcome of intra-ocular inflammation (uveitis) associated with cancer immunotherapy (CIT). Serial patients complaining of blurred vision and painful eyes showed intra-ocular inflammation that was related to CIT, after infectious, inflammatory and tumoral causes of uveitis have been ruled out. The length of follow-up was more than 12 months for most patients. Eight serial patients treated with rituximab (anti-CD20), nivolumab (anti-PD-1), ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4), vemurafenib and dabrafenib (anti-BRAF), trametinib (anti-MEK) and ibritunib showed intra-ocular inflammation with hypopion (one patient), macular edema (five patients) and choroiditis (two patients). Various regimens of corticosteroid therapy showed a favorable ophthalmological outcome, whether the CIT was continuing or suspended. Local corticosteroid injections in combination with CIT could be suggested as a first-line treatment. This could help to preserve the quality of life without threatening the vital prognosis.