Next Article in Journal
Identification of Thiazolo[5,4-b]pyridine Derivatives as c-KIT Inhibitors for Overcoming Imatinib Resistance
Next Article in Special Issue
Association of Pulmonary Sepsis and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Pharmacovigilance Study
Previous Article in Journal
Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases—A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/cancers15010141
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

BRAF and MEK Inhibitors and Their Toxicities: A Meta-Analysis

by
Mattia Garutti
1,*,†,
Melissa Bergnach
2,†,
Jerry Polesel
3,
Lorenza Palmero
1,2,
Maria Antonietta Pizzichetta
1,4 and
Fabio Puglisi
1,2
1
CRO Aviano, National Cancer Institute, IRCCS, 33081 Aviano, Italy
2
Department of Medicine, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy
3
Unit of Cancer Epidemiology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, 33081 Aviano, Italy
4
Department of Dermatology, University of Trieste, 34123 Trieste, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cancers 2023, 15(1), 141; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15010141
Submission received: 13 November 2022 / Revised: 15 December 2022 / Accepted: 22 December 2022 / Published: 26 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Side Effects of Anticancer Therapy: Prevention and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

To date, one of the reference therapies for the treatment of mutated BRAF metastatic melanoma is based on the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Although many trials have compared BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies, there is no evidence of superiority in the use of one of the three combinations over the others. Furthermore, comparative data on safety are scarce. To help clinicians tailor patients’ treatment using the most appropriate BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations, we performed a meta-analysis of adverse events associated with each treatment combination.

Abstract

Purpose: This meta-analysis summarizes the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AE) of BRAFi and MEKi. Methods: A systematic search of Medline/PubMed was conducted to identify suitable articles published in English up to 31 December 2021. The primary outcomes were profiles for all-grade and grade 3 or higher treatment-related AEs, and the analysis of single side effects belonging to both categories. Results: The overall incidence of treatment-related all-grade Aes was 99% for Encorafenib (95% CI: 0.97–1.00) and 97% for Trametinib (95% CI: 0.92–0.99; I2 = 66%) and Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.94–0.99; I2 = 0%). In combined therapies, the rate was 98% for both Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (95% CI: 0.96–0.99; I2 = 77%) and Encorafenib + Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.96–1.00). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 69% of cases for Binimetinib (95% CI: 0.50–0.84; I2 = 71%), 68% for Encorafenib (95% CI: 0.61–0.74), and 72% for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (95% CI: 0.65–0.79; I2 = 84%). The most common grade 1–2 AEs were pyrexia (43%) and fatigue (28%) for Dabrafenib + Trametinib and diarrhea for both Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (52%) and Encorafenib + Binimetinib (34%). The most common AEs of grade 3 or higher were pyrexia, rash, and hypertension for Dabrafenib + Trametinib (6%), rash and hypertension for Encorafenib + Binimetinib (6%), and increased AST and ALT for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib (10%). Conclusions: Our study provides comprehensive data on treatment-related adverse events of BRAFi and MEKi combination therapies, showing related toxicity profiles to offer a helpful tool for clinicians in the choice of therapy.

1. Introduction

In the early 1980s, new discoveries in the fields of molecular biology, cell biology, and immunology led to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the neoplastic transformations in cells [1,2].
These discoveries opened the doors to the targeted therapy, which is based on small selective inhibitory molecules or monoclonal antibodies that make it possible to act on a specific target expressed by cancer cells and not by healthy ones, allowing to significantly reduce toxicity and side effects [1,2]. The target therapy spectrum includes chemical small molecules such as intracytoplasmic serine/threonine kinase inhibitors, which include BRAF inhibitors (Vemurafenib, Dabrafenib, and Encorafenib) and MEK inhibitors (Trametinib, Cobimetinib, and Binimetinib) [2]. The role of these drugs, demonstrated by their biological target (BRAF or MEK), is closely related to the MAPK pathway, a cascade involved in extracellular signal transduction to the nucleus, promoting the expression of genes with a central role in cell proliferation, differentiation, survival, and apoptosis [3,4,5,6,7].
In clinical practice, the prominence of this effect is mainly ascribable to melanoma treatment; in fact, in about 40–60% of patients affected by cutaneous melanoma, tumor cells harbor a specific mutation called BRAF-V600E, which results as targetable by BRAF inhibitors which interfere with this signal transduction pathway, causing apoptosis in melanoma cells [3,8,9].
The rationale behind the use of the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors is to prevent the aberrant activation of mutated BRAF in the context of the RAF-MEK-ERK pathway [4,7,10,11,12,13]. The BRAF inhibitors demonstrated a greater efficacy when compared to standard chemotherapy, improving the outcome of patients in terms of both progression-free and overall survival; however, the benefit was transient, with median progression-free survival ranging between 6 and 7 months [14,15,16]. Furthermore, BRAF inhibitors, by paradoxically activating the molecular pathway of MAP kinases, favored the development of secondary tumors, especially cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas, and the main cause of monotherapy failure was represented by acquisition of resistance mechanisms, mainly due to a reactivation of the MAP kinase pathway [17,18,19].
To overcome said issue, in the reference therapy for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma, BRAF inhibitors are used in combination with MEK inhibitors to act simultaneously against two different targets of the same pathway, evading the cancerous cell-intrinsic resistance [3,8,9,20]. MEK inhibitors, in fact, block the paradoxical activation of the MAP kinase pathway and do not display the criticalities previously noted following the use of BRAF inhibitors [11,12].
Currently, three different doublets are available in clinical practice (Dabrafenib plus Trametinib, Vemurafenib plus Cobimentinib, and Encorafenib plus Binimetinib), and each one of them is present in at least one phase 3 clinical trial [14,21,22,23]. However, there are no studies involving a direct comparison between the various BRAF and MEK inhibitors, meaning there are no evident signs of superiority in the use of one combination over the others, especially in terms of safety [11,12,17,24].
To help clinicians to better select the right BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations for the right patients, we performed a meta-analysis with the aim to indirectly compare the different safety profiles of BRAF and MEK inhibitors. With these data, we have also elaborated a tool to facilitate the assignment of drugs to the most frequently encountered clinical scenarios.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

One database—Medline (PubMed)—was used to search for relevant articles published in English in a peer-reviewed journal, with the last search update on 31 December 2021. Systematic research was set up to identify published studies on BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies that reported treatment-related adverse events, filtering only English articles obeying this query: “LX-4032 OR PLX4032 OR RG-7204 OR RG7204 OR RO-51-85426 OR RO-5185426 OR RO5185426 OR Vemurafenib OR Zelboraf OR GDC 0973 OR GDC-0973 OR GDC0973 OR RG 7420 OR RG-7420 OR RG7420 OR RO5514041 OR XL 518 OR XL-518 OR XL518 OR Cobimetinib OR Cotellic OR GSK-2118436 OR GSK-2118436A OR GSK2118436 OR GSK2118436A OR Dabrafenib OR Tafinlar OR GSK 1120212 OR GSK-1120212 OR GSK1120212 OR JTP 74057 OR JTP-74057 OR Trametinib OR Mekinist OR LGX-818 OR LGX818 OR NVP-LGX-818-NXA OR NVP-LGX818 OR NVP-LGX818-NXA OR Encorafenib OR Braftovi OR ARRY-162 OR ARRY-438162 OR MEK-162 OR MEK162 OR NVP-MEK162 OR Binimetinib OR Mektovi”.
The selection of the studies was conducted based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) studies on BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors, (b) studies with a sample size of 20 patients or higher, and (c) studies reporting data on toxicity related to BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Reviews, case reports, and studies on the evaluation of QoL (quality of life) were excluded. The retrieved articles were screened and selected by two independent authors (M.B. and L.P.) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and disagreements were settled by a third researcher (M.G.). This process resulted in 91 eligible records (Table S1) [9,14,16,21,22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109]. Among them, 68 are about melanoma and 23 are about other cancers. Line of therapy was not a selection criterion.
Quality assessment and risk of bias were evaluated through the ROBINS-I tool [110]. All included articles reported low risk.
Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTC-AE) version 4.0.

2.2. Data Extraction

From each included study, the parameters that were taken into consideration were: author, year of publication, study design, country, period of conduction, total number of patients, and number of patients reporting adverse events according to grade.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The pooled proportion of adverse events and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated according to random-effects models of DerSimonian and Laird [111], using the logit transformation. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the I2 and τ2 statistics. Publication bias was assessed through a funnel plot [112]. Influence analysis was performed by calculating the pooled proportion, omitting one study at a time.
The results of the meta-analysis were presented graphically using forest plots, plotting the individual papers, pooled proportions, and corresponding 95% CI. Analyses were conducted using R 4.1, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05 (two-sided).
The proportion of adverse events was then correlated to oncological outcome with an ecological approach, calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient (r).

3. Results

Our initial research, performed on PubMed publications, identified 3856 records, of which only 91 were deemed eligible, involving a total of about 23,000 patients (Figure 1). The 91 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria were analyzed (Table S1) [9,14,16,21,22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109].
A detailed evaluation of the risk of bias for each study reported a low level of risk for all included studies (Table S2) [110].

3.1. Any-Grade Toxicity

Adverse events of any grade (G1–G5) have been registered in a large percentage of patients treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (Figure 2). Among BRAF inhibitors, Vemurafenib induced adverse events of any grade in 93% of patients (95% CI: 90–95%), Dabrafenib in 85% (95% CI: 72–93%), whilst patients who underwent treatment with Encorafenib developed a toxicity of any grade in 99% of cases (95% CI: 97–100%) (Table 1). Regarding MEK inhibitors, 97% of patients who underwent treatment with Trametinib (95% CI: 92–99%) and Binimetinib (95% CI: 94–99%) developed a toxicity of any grade (Table 1). As for the combined therapies, Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib induced side effects of any grade in 98% of patients (95% CI: 96–99%) (Table 1). This kind of toxicity was reported in 94% of patients who, instead, underwent treatment with an association of Dabrafenib and Trametinib (95% CI: 89–97%) and in 98% of patients who underwent treatment with an association of Encorafenib plus Binimetinib (95% CI: 96–100%) (Table 1). Significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05) emerged for all considered treatments.

3.2. Grade 3 or Higher Toxicity

Focusing on BRAF inhibitors (Figure 3), induced side effects of grade 3–5 were reported more frequently among patients undergoing treatment with Encorafenib (68%; 95% CI: 61–74%) and Vemurafenib (51%; 95% CI: 46–57%) than those treated with Dabrafenib (33%; 95% CI: 27–40%) (Table 1). Among MEK inhibitors, induced side effects of grade 3–5 were higher for Binimetinib (69%; 95% CI: 50–84%) than for Trametinib (36%; 95% CI: 17–60%) (Table 1). As for the combined therapies, induced side effects of grade 3–5 were reported by 72% (95% CI: 65–79%) of patients undergoing Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib and in 68% of patients treated with Encorafenib plus Binimetinib (95% CI: 61–75%). Only 44% (95% CI: 37–50%) of patients undergoing treatment with the association of Dabrafenib and Trametinib developed a grade 3–5 toxicity (Table 1).

3.3. G1–G2 Adverse Events

When analyzing the data on single G1–G2 adverse events, there is a variability in the incidence of the various side effects considered.
As for monotherapy, Vemurafenib is associated with arthralgia in 40% of cases, rash in 34%, and fatigue in 33%, while Dabrafenib causes fatigue in 41% of patients, pyrexia in 32%, and rash in 31%. Significant incidence data above 30% were also observed for Trametinib causing rash in 38% of cases, Encorafenib associated with alopecia in 56%, and Binimetinib causing rash in 64%, diarrhea in 40%, and vomiting in 38%.
As for the combination therapy, Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib causes diarrhea in 52% of cases, Encorafenib plus Binimetinib causes diarrhea in 34%, and finally, Dabrafenib and Trametinib are associated with pyrexia in 43% (Figure 4).

3.4. G3–G5 Adverse Events

When analyzing the data involving single G3–G5 adverse events, regarding monotherapy, the incidence is equal to or less than 5% in most cases, such as: increase in transaminases and asthenia, and decreased ejection fraction, diarrhea, and fatigue.
Higher rates of incidence are instead recorded in the course of therapy with Encorafenib, which induces arthralgia in 13% (95% CI: 0.05–0.27) of patients, Trametinib causes hypertension (95% CI: 0.08–0.16) and skin rash (95% CI: 0.08–0.16) in 11% of cases, and Binimetinib induces anemia in 8% (95% CI: 0.01–0.41, p-value < 0.01) of cases.
Regarding the combination therapy, Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib represents the pharmacological doublet associated with a higher frequency of adverse events, inducing an increase in transaminases in 10% (95% CI: 0.08–0.13) of cases, skin rash in 8% (95% CI: 0.05–0.11), vomiting in 8% (95% CI: 0.01–0.04), and hypertension in 8% (95% CI: 0.05–0.11) (Figure 5).
Grade 5 adverse events were registered in each treatment group. One case of intracranial hemorrhage was registered following treatment with Dabrafenib. Vemurafenib induced a higher number of grade 5 adverse events, the most frequent of which were unknown deaths, general physical health deterioration, cerebral hemorrhage, cerebrovascular accident, pneumonia, and intracranial tumor hemorrhage (Table S3, Figure S1). Two patients treated with Trametinib died of sudden and unknown death, whilst only one patient treated with Binimetinib died of unknown causes. One patient treated with the Encorafenib plus Binimetinib doublet was lost to suicide, and five patients treated with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib suffered from cardiac arrest, coma, clostridium difficile colitis, myocardial infarction, and pneumonia. Finally, five patients were lost to grade 5 adverse events in the treatment with Dabrafenib and Trametinib: two cerebral hemorrhages, one brain stem hemorrhage, one pneumoperitoneum, and one disease progression (Table S3, Figure S1).

3.5. Dose Reduction and Treatment Interruption

Among BRAF inhibitors, a necessary dose reduction was registered in 33% of patients treated with Vemurafenib (95% CI: 27–40%) and 14% of patients treated with Dabrafenib (95% CI: 10–19%), whilst, when analyzing MEK inhibitors, it was registered in 27% of patients treated with Trametinib (95% CI: 19–38%) and 56% of patients receiving Binimetinib (95% CI: 43–69%). As for the combined therapies, the data show a dose reduction applied to 65% of patients treated with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib (95% CI: 59–71%), and to 28% of patients treated with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib (95% CI: 21–36%). Treatment was discontinued in 30% of patients treated with Vemurafenib (95% CI: 17–47%) and 10% of patients treated with Dabrafenib (2–34%), whilst among MEK inhibitors, it was interrupted in 31% of patients treated with Trametinib (95% CI: 15–55%) and 37% of patients treated with Binimetinib (95% CI: 9–78%). As for the combined therapies, treatment was discontinued in 24% of patients treated with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib (95% CI: 9–51%) (Figure 6).

3.6. Adverse Events and Oncological Outcomes

To evaluate whether side effects have an impact on prognosis, we correlated the reported incidence of side effects and some oncological outcomes. No correlation emerged between the incidence of side effects and the median progression-free survival (r = 0.15), response rate (r = −0.10), and complete response rate (r = −0.09). There was a slight positive correlation, instead, between the incidence of side effects and the median overall survival (r = 0.22). A slight but negative correlation was instead registered between the incidence of side effects and the median duration of response (r = −0.41). Finally, there was a strong, direct, positive correlation between the incidence of side effects and dose reduction (r = 0.68) (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

This meta-analysis, through the review of toxicity profiles of BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies, both in monotherapy and in combined regimes, aimed to find the most suitable doublet for the individual patient.
BRAF inhibitors are selective inhibitors of BRAF kinase with immunomodulatory action. The toxicity profiles amongst them are similar: rash, joint pain, and fatigue are recorded with overlapping incidence rates, but may present a few exceptions, such as the excessive sensitivity to sunlight caused by Vemurafenib, or hyperkeratosis or dysesthesia seem to occur more frequently, particularly with Encorafenib monotherapy [17,18,114,115]. Being inhibitors to the BRAF kinase also means they have a common feature biologically related to the paradoxical activation of the MAP kinase pathway associated with upstream activation of pre-existing RAS mutations in a specific type of cell: keratinocytes; in fact, a frequent adverse event related to the use of BRAF inhibitors is the development of secondary cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas [105,116,117].
MEK inhibitors, on the other hand, have extrinsic activity against MEK1/2 kinases involved in the MAPK pathway [15,118,119]. Results on adverse events display that rash, diarrhea, peripheral edema, and fatigue are common to all three drugs belonging to this class [16,25]. On the other hand, acneiform dermatitis and papulopustular rash are specifically related to Trametinib assumptions, just as nausea and vomiting are characteristically recorded following therapy with Binimetinib [15,107].
The end purpose is to be able to tailor a therapy, avoiding specific side effects in patients that already suffer from mostly chronic diseases involving the same organs or apparatuses. Following this statement, the significance of single side effects is not considered in absolute value but in relation to the clinical conditions and comorbidities of the patient on the receiving end of the treatment.
To obtain this and achieve accurate results with a complete and clear profile of side effect incidence rates, the analysis has been divided into four different fields: two of which focus on any-grade and grade 3 through 5 side effects, and two other fields concentrating specifically on single side effects belonging to both previously mentioned categories. The side effects we chose to analyze singularly are the ones deemed both common and clinically relevant, and they include: anemia, arthralgia, alopecia, asthenia, diarrhea, fatigue, pyrexia, rash, vomiting, headache, transaminase level increases, anorexia, hypertension, and decreased ejection fraction.
Although a direct comparison between the three drug combinations is not possible, the incidence rates of any-grade side effects appear to be comparable and higher than 90% for all 3 doublets, whilst a greater divergence is registered when focusing on grades 3 through 5 side effects. Specifically, the results highlight a higher incidence of the latter following treatment with Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib and Encorafenib plus Binimetinib, where values stand, respectively, at 72% and 68%, whilst the remaining doublet, Dabrafenib plus Trametinib standing at 44%, shows remarkably lower incidence rates. This implies that whilst lower-grade side effects are expected no matter which doublet is chosen for therapy, we can anticipate a significantly decreased rate of high-grade side effects when choosing the Dabrafenib and Trametinib doublet.
In regard to the analysis of lower-grade side effects (G1 and G2), the results describe that systemic side effects such as arthralgia, alopecia, asthenia, fatigue, rash, headache, and pyrexia are frequent in all three therapeutic regimens, with small variations: the combination of Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib presents higher incidence rates of arthralgia, fatigue, and skin rash; on the other hand, the onset of headache, pyrexia, and asthenia are more frequently caused by the combination of Dabrafenib and Trametinib. Analyzing specific organ side effects, the main toxicity involves the gastrointestinal system: greater than 20% in all three drug combinations for both diarrhea and vomiting. Specifically, the highest incidence of G1–G2 diarrhea, 52%, is registered in the combination therapy with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib, while the highest incidence of vomiting, 29%, is observed following the use of Encorafenib and Binimetinib. Intermediate incidence rates ranging from 8% (Encorafenib plus Binimetinib) to 25% (Dabrafenib plus Trametinib) are recorded for anorexia and ranging from around 7% (Encorafenib plus Binimetinib) to approximately 15% (Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib) for liver toxicity, with increased transaminase levels.
Lastly, incidence rates lower than 10% were associated with cardiovascular involvement.
These data show that even though there is a comparable toxicity spectrum when considering systemic side effects, a higher variability is registered between the incidence rates of side effects targeting specific organs or apparatuses. This trend is also noticeable when we switch the focus to higher-grade adverse events.
Some of the grade 3 through 5 side effects present superimposable incidence rates between the three doublets, and these are anemia (5–6%), asthenia (3%), decreased ejection fraction (2–3%), and headache (1–2%). The key factor, though, on which this analysis shines the light, is the unevenness between the doublets. When considering therapies with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib and Encorafenib plus Binmetinib, arthralgia is registered in 1% of cases, rising to 4% when the treatment considered is Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib. This consideration can be meaningful in orienting towards the therapeutic choice when patients undergoing this specific oncological treatment suffer from chronic joint issues or concomitant rheumatological pathologies.
Hypertension is recorded in 6% of patients treated with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib and with Encorafenib plus Binimetinib, an incidence rate that increases to 8% when considering the Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib doublet. In this case, the first two therapeutic options should be favored. Even if the difference appears to be small, granting a better cardiovascular toxicity profile in a general population commonly affected by these kinds of comorbidities is preferable. On the same line, pyrexia is registered in 2% of cases in the Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib combined therapy, an incidence that increases to 4% when we consider Encorafenib plus Binimetinib and reaches 6% in case of treatment with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib. The difference between these numbers in absolute value can seem small, but when considering the comparison regardless of what the actual number is, what is clear is that Dabrafenib plus Trametinib leads to an essentially tripled incidence rate of pyrexia, a factor that should be kept in mind when choosing the appropriate doublet.
When it comes to gastrointestinal side effects, both vomiting and diarrhea present higher incidence rates following therapy with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib, respectively, 8% and 5%, which decreases for the other doublets: vomiting rates diminish to 2% in both the other doublets, and diarrhea rates decrease to 1% and 3%, respectively, for Dabrafenib plus Trametinib and Encorafenib plus Binimetinib. Therefore, although our data are descriptive in nature, it could be speculated that Dabrafenib and Trametinib, compared to other drug doublets, might induce gastroenteric grade 3–5 side effects in a lower percentage of cases.
Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib is a doublet that also results in a relevant rate of side effects such as skin rash (8%) and hepatotoxicity. In fact, it determines an increase in hepatic cytonecrosis indices (AST and ALT) in 10% of cases, compared to essentially halved rates if we instead consider the therapies with Dabrafenib and Trametinib (4%) and with Encorafenib and Binimetinib (5%). This information is relevant when we consider hepatopathic patients for treatment: the doublets consisting of Dabrafenib plus Trametinib or Encorafenib plus Binimetinib may be preferred over Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib.
Although the combination of Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib is associated with higher incidence rates of diarrhea compared to other doublets, the same result does not emerge when considering vomiting and anorexia. In fact, although the results are clear in stating that the use of Dabrafenib and Trametinib is associated with a higher incidence rate of anorexia, the same cannot be stated for vomiting, where the data are conflicting. A higher incidence rate of grade 1–2 vomiting is related to the use of Encorafenib and Binimetinib, whilst when it comes to grades 3 or higher toxicity, the V-C doublet emerges. Comparing the results obtained on the incidence profiles of the single most frequent side effects following the prescription of BRAF and MEK inhibitors, it is observed that the combination therapy with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib is associated with a higher rate of diarrhea, arthralgia, and skin rash for any considered grade. This combination is also correlated to an onset of liver toxicity with a transaminase level increase, and cardiovascular toxicity, resulting in higher incidence rates of hypertension and decreased ejection fraction when compared to the other doublets, even though, focusing especially on the grade 3 or higher decrease in ejection fraction, higher incidence rates were reported in the Dabrafenib and Trametinib therapy regimen.
In conclusion, based on the results of this meta-analysis, it appears that some doublets may be more suitable than others in certain patient categories in virtue of a lower rate of specific side effects. This study shows that when the chosen combination is Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib, there is a higher incidence of hepatotoxicity; consequently, the use of other doublets presenting the lowest rates of hepatotoxicity could be preferred, in this case the Encorafenib and Binimetinib one. The data are relevant, especially in the absence of a direct comparison, when we consider treatment in patients with underlying liver cirrhosis or rare genetic liver dysfunctions. The same type of reasoning can be applied to cardiovascular diseases. Considering the high incidence of arterial hypertension, heart failure, and atrial and ventricular arrhythmias in the general population, the lower incidence of side effects that could affect the heart should guide the choice of which doublet to prescribe. The lowest incidence rate for increased blood pressure and decreased ejection fraction was recorded in relation to Encorafenib and Binimetinib, potentially becoming the preferred doublet in this specific subset of patients. Considering the progressive trend towards a longer life expectancy, and therefore an increase in numbers of the elderly population, it is crucial to consider side effects such as arthralgia in specific contexts, such as patients suffering from aging-linked arthrosis, chronic arthropathies, and above all, rheumatological diseases that afflict bones and cartilage, such as rheumatoid arthritis. This study shows that treatment with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib is related to a higher incidence of any-grade arthralgia; therefore, one could move towards the use of the other two doublets, reporting lower and almost overlapping incidence rates.
Furthermore, it was found that combination therapy with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib shows a higher incidence of any-grade skin rash. In this case, resorting to the use of Dabrafenib and Trametinib or Encorafenib and Binimetinib would represent the better option for patients suffering from dermatological diseases.
Finally, the main hematological side effect studied was anemia. In this regard, the data are conflicting: Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib, when combined, would determine a higher incidence of grade 3 or higher anemia, whilst a higher incidence of grade 1–2 anemia is associated with the use of Dabrafenib and Trametinib.
The toxicity profile review performed, in addition and relation to patients’ clinical conditions and comorbidities, can prove useful in selecting the best doublet. This analysis, however, presents some limitations. Firstly, even though the amount of gathered data was high and this work turned out to be solid, a direct comparison between drugs was not possible. Furthermore, the non-inclusion of data belonging to either quality of life reports (QoL) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) represents another limitation. Nevertheless, the results of this meta-analysis can represent a valuable basis for future studies aimed to identify the optimal doublet to use in a specific clinical context and to define differential toxicity based on cancer type, line of therapy, and baseline biomarkers (e.g., LDH).

5. Conclusions

The goal of this meta-analysis was to provide a useful tool to guide the clinician towards the best therapeutic option among the different combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors used in melanoma treatment (Figure 8). In virtue of that fact, as mentioned earlier, to date, the choice between one of the three combinations is essentially arbitrary. In view of this, our study provided comprehensive data on treatment-related adverse events in BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies, displaying the toxicity profiles of BRAF inhibitors, MEK inhibitors, and combination therapies, providing a valuable tool to guide clinicians in the choice of the optimal therapeutic option for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers15010141/s1, Table S1: The 91 studies included in the meta-analysis. Table S2: Evaluation of the bias risk according to Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions guidelines (ROBINS I) [110]. Table S3: Adverse events grade 5; Figure S1: Overall incidences of grade 5 adverse events according to treatment regimen.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.G.; methodology, M.G., J.P. and M.B.; formal analysis, J.P.; data curation, M.B. and L.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B. and M.G.; writing—review and editing, all authors; supervision, M.G., F.P. and M.A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente).

Conflicts of Interest

M.G. receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pierre-Fabre, and Roche, and travel fees from Daichii Sankyo, all outside the submitted work. F.P. reports receipt of grants/research supports from Astrazeneca, Eisai, and Roche, and receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Amgen, Astrazeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, and Viatris. Other authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chabner, B.A.; Roberts, T.G., Jr. Timeline: Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2005, 5, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Falzone, L.; Salomone, S.; Libra, M. Evolution of Cancer Pharmacological Treatments at the Turn of the Third Millennium. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Nuove Armi Contro il Cancro: Target Therapy e Immunoterapia. SIF Magazine. Available online: https://www.sifweb.org/sif-magazine/articolo/nuove-armi-contro-il-cancro-target-therapy-e-immunoterapia-2020-05-07 (accessed on 24 January 2022).
  4. Leonardi, G.C.; Falzone, L.; Salemi, R.; Zanghì, A.; Spandidos, D.A.; McCubrey, J.A.; Candido, S.; Libra, M. Cutaneous melanoma: From pathogenesis to therapy (Review). Int. J. Oncol. 2018, 52, 1071–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Morrison, D.K. MAP Kinase Pathways. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2012, 4, a011254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Kolch, W. Meaningful relationships: The regulation of the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK pathway by protein interactions. Biochem. J. 2000, 351, 289–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wellbrock, C.; Karasarides, M.; Marais, R. The RAF proteins take centre stage. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2004, 5, 875–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Raman, M.; Chen, W.; Cobb, M.H. Differential regulation and properties of MAPKs. Oncogene 2007, 26, 3100–3112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Robert, C.; Karaszewska, B.; Schachter, J.; Rutkowski, P.; Mackiewicz, A.; Stroiakovski, D.; Lichinitser, M.; Dummer, R.; Grange, F.; Mortier, L.; et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Huser, M.; Luckett, J.; Chiloeches, A.; Mercer, K.; Iwobi, M.; Giblett, S.; Sun, X.; Brown, J.; Marais, R.; Pritchard, C. MEK kinase activity is not necessary for Raf-1 function. EMBO J. 2001, 20, 1940–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Cohen, C.; Zavala-Pompa, A.; Sequeira, J.H.; Shoji, M.; Sexton, D.G.; Cotsonis, G.; Cerimele, F.; Govindarajan, B.; Macaron, N.; Arbiser, J.L. Mitogen-actived protein kinase activation is an early event in melanoma progression. Clin. Cancer Res. 2002, 8, 3728–3733. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carlino, M.S.; Long, G.; Kefford, R.; Rizos, H. Targeting oncogenic BRAF and aberrant MAPK activation in the treatment of cutaneous melanoma. Crit. Rev. Oncol. 2015, 96, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wang, Y.F.; Jiang, C.C.; Kiejda, K.A.; Gillespie, S.; Zhang, X.D.; Hersey, P. Apoptosis Induction in Human Melanoma Cells by Inhibition of MEK Is Caspase-Independent and Mediated by the Bcl-2 Family Members PUMA, Bim, and Mcl-1. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007, 13, 4934–4942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Larkin, J.; Del Vecchio, M.; Ascierto, P.A.; Krajsová, I.; Schachter, J.; Neyns, B.; Espinosa, E.; Garbe, C.; Sileni, V.C.; Gogas, H.; et al. Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutated metastatic melanoma: An open-label, multicentre, safety study. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cheng, Y.; Tian, H. Current Development Status of MEK Inhibitors. Molecules 2017, 22, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Flaherty, K.T.; Robert, C.; Hersey, P.; Nathan, P.; Garbe, C.; Milhem, M.; Demidov, L.V.; Hassel, J.C.; Rutkowski, P.; Mohr, P.; et al. Improved Survival with MEK Inhibition in BRAF-Mutated Melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Proietti, I.; Skroza, N.; Michelini, S.; Mambrin, A.; Balduzzi, V.; Bernardini, N.; Marchesiello, A.; Tolino, E.; Volpe, S.; Maddalena, P.; et al. BRAF Inhibitors: Molecular Targeting and Immunomodulatory Actions. Cancers 2020, 12, 1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. King, A.J.; Arnone, M.R.; Bleam, M.R.; Moss, K.G.; Yang, J.; Fedorowicz, K.E.; Smitheman, K.N.; Erhardt, J.A.; Hughes-Earle, A.; Kane-Carson, L.S.; et al. Dabrafenib; Preclinical Characterization, Increased Efficacy when Combined with Trametinib, while BRAF/MEK Tool Combination Reduced Skin Lesions. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e67583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Adelmann, C.H.; Ching, G.; Du, L.; Saporito, R.C.; Bansal, V.; Pence, L.J.; Liang, R.; Lee, W.; Tsai, K.Y. Comparative profiles of BRAF inhibitors: The paradox index as a predictor of clinical toxicity. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 30453–30460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Salemi, R.; Falzone, L.; Madonna, G.; Polesel, J.; Cinà, D.; Mallardo, D.; Ascierto, P.A.; Libra, M.; Candido, S. MMP-9 as a Candidate Marker of Response to BRAF Inhibitors in Melanoma Patients With BRAFV600E Mutation Detected in Circulating-Free DNA. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Long, G.V.; Hauschild, A.; Santinami, M.; Atkinson, V.; Mandalà, M.; Sileni, V.C.; Larkin, J.; Nyakas, M.; Dutriaux, C.; Haydon, A.; et al. Adjuvant Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Stage IIIBRAF-Mutated Melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 1813–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Long, G.V.; Stroyakovskiy, D.; Gogas, H.; Levchenko, E.; de Braud, F.; Larkin, J.; Garbe, C.; Jouary, T.; Hauschild, A.; Grob, J.J.; et al. Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibition versus BRAF Inhibition Alone in Melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 1877–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Dummer, R.; Ascierto, P.A.; Gogas, H.J.; Arance, A.; Mandala, M.; Liszkay, G.; Garbe, C.; Schadendorf, D.; Krajsova, I.; Gutzmer, R.; et al. Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF -mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): A multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Sun, J.; Carr, M.J.; Khushalani, N.I. Principles of Targeted Therapy for Melanoma. Surg. Clin. North Am. 2019, 100, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chapman, P.B.; Hauschild, A.; Robert, C.; Haanen, J.B.; Ascierto, P.; Larkin, J.; Dummer, R.; Garbe, C.; Testori, A.; Maio, M.; et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 2507–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Dréno, B.; Ribas, A.; Larkin, J.; Ascierto, P.A.; Hauschild, A.; Thomas, L.; Grob, J.-J.; Koralek, D.O.; Rooney, I.; Hsu, J.J.; et al. Incidence, course, and management of toxicities associated with cobimetinib in combination with vemurafenib in the coBRIM study. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, 1137–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cleary, J.M.; Wang, V.X.; Heist, R.S.; Kopetz, E.S.; Mitchell, E.P.; Zwiebel, J.A.; Kapner, K.S.; Chen, H.X.; Li, S.; Gray, R.J.; et al. Differential Outcomes in Codon 12/13 and Codon 61NRAS-Mutated Cancers in the Phase II NCI-MATCH Trial of Binimetinib in Patients with NRAS-Mutated Tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 27, 2996–3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Planchard, D.; Besse, B.; Groen, H.J.; Hashemi, S.M.; Mazieres, J.; Kim, T.M.; Quoix, E.; Souquet, P.-J.; Barlesi, F.; Baik, C.; et al. Phase 2 Study of Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in Patients With BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic NSCLC: Updated 5-Year Survival Rates and Genomic Analysis. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2021, 17, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ascierto, P.A.; Dréno, B.; Larkin, J.; Ribas, A.; Liszkay, G.; Maio, M.; Mandalà, M.; Demidov, L.; Stroyakovskiy, D.; Thomas, L.; et al. 5-Year Outcomes with Cobimetinib plus Vemurafenib in BRAFV600 Mutation–Positive Advanced Melanoma: Extended Follow-up of the coBRIM Study. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 27, 5225–5235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mandel, V.D.; Medri, M.; Manganoni, A.M.; Pavoni, L.; De Rosa, F.; Ribero, S.; Foca, F.; Andreis, D.; Mazzoni, L.; Magi, S.; et al. Long-term vemurafenib therapy in advanced melanoma patients: Cutaneous toxicity and prognostic implications. J. Dermatol. Treat. 2020, 33, 1368–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Salama, A.K.S.; Li, S.; Macrae, E.R.; Park, J.-I.; Mitchell, E.P.; Zwiebel, J.A.; Chen, H.X.; Gray, R.J.; McShane, L.M.; Rubinstein, L.V.; et al. Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Patients With Tumors With BRAFV600E Mutations: Results of the NCI-MATCH Trial Subprotocol, H. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 3895–3904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gutzmer, R.; Stroyakovskiy, D.; Gogas, H.; Robert, C.; Lewis, K.; Protsenko, S.; Pereira, R.P.; Eigentler, T.; Rutkowski, P.; Demidov, L.; et al. Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (IMspire150): Primary analysis of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2020, 395, 1835–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Atkinson, V.; Sandhu, S.; Hospers, G.; Long, G.V.; Aglietta, M.; Ferrucci, P.F.; Tulyte, S.; Cappellini, G.C.A.; Soriano, V.; Ali, S.; et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib is effective in the treatment of BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma patients: Analysis of patients from the dabrafenib plus trametinib Named Patient Program (DESCRIBE II). Melanoma Res. 2020, 30, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Teshima, Y.; Kizaki, M.; Kurihara, R.; Kano, R.; Harumiya, M. Interim analysis for post-marketing surveillance of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy in Japanese patients with unresectable and metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 25, 1870–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ferrucci, P.F.; Di Giacomo, A.M.; Del Vecchio, M.; Atkinson, V.; Schmidt, H.; Schachter, J.; Queirolo, P.; Long, G.V.; Stephens, R.; Svane, I.M.; et al. KEYNOTE-022 part 3: A randomized, double-blind, phase 2 study of pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib in BRAF-mutant melanoma. J. Immunother. Cancer 2020, 8, e001806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Algazi, A.P.; Othus, M.; Daud, A.I.; Lo, R.S.; Mehnert, J.M.; Truong, T.-G.; Conry, R.; Kendra, K.; Doolittle, G.C.; Clark, J.I.; et al. Continuous versus intermittent BRAF and MEK inhibition in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma: A randomized phase 2 trial. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 1564–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Subbiah, V.; Lassen, U.; Élez, E.; Italiano, A.; Curigliano, G.; Javle, M.; de Braud, F.; Prager, G.W.; Greil, R.; Stein, A.; et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated biliary tract cancer (ROAR): A phase 2, open-label, single-arm, multicentre basket trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1234–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Si, L.; Zhang, X.; Shin, S.J.; Fan, Y.; Lin, C.-C.; Kim, T.M.; Dechaphunkul, A.; Maneechavakajorn, J.; Wong, C.S.; Ilankumaran, P.; et al. Open-label, phase IIa study of dabrafenib plus trametinib in East Asian patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant cutaneous melanoma. Eur. J. Cancer 2020, 135, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kim, R.D.; McDonough, S.; El-Khoueiry, A.B.; Bekaii-Saab, T.S.; Stein, S.M.; Sahai, V.; Keogh, G.P.; Kim, E.J.; Baron, A.D.; Siegel, A.B.; et al. Randomised phase II trial (SWOG S1310) of single agent MEK inhibitor trametinib Versus 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine in refractory advanced biliary cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 2020, 130, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Monk, B.J.; Grisham, R.N.; Banerjee, S.; Kalbacher, E.; Mirza, M.R.; Romero, I.; Vuylsteke, P.; Coleman, R.L.; Hilpert, F.; Oza, A.M.; et al. MILO/ENGOT-ov11: Binimetinib Versus Physician’s Choice Chemotherapy in Recurrent or Persistent Low-Grade Serous Carcinomas of the Ovary, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneum. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 3753–3762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ascierto, P.A.; Dummer, R.; Gogas, H.J.; Flaherty, K.T.; Arance, A.; Mandala, M.; Liszkay, G.; Garbe, C.; Schadendorf, D.; Krajsova, I.; et al. Update on tolerability and overall survival in COLUMBUS: Landmark analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib vs vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600–mutant melanoma. Eur. J. Cancer 2020, 126, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Subbiah, V.; Gervais, R.; Riely, G.; Hollebecque, A.; Blay, J.-Y.; Felip, E.; Schuler, M.; Gonçalves, A.; Italiano, A.; Keedy, V.; et al. Efficacy of Vemurafenib in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer With BRAF V600 Mutation: An Open-Label, Single-Arm Cohort of the Histology-Independent VE-BASKET Study. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2019, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Long, G.V.; Saw, R.P.M.; Lo, S.; Nieweg, O.E.; Shannon, K.F.; Gonzalez, M.; Guminski, A.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, H.; Ferguson, P.M.; et al. Neoadjuvant dabrafenib combined with trametinib for resectable, stage IIIB–C, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (NeoCombi): A single-arm, open-label, single-centre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 961–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Takahashi, A.; Namikawa, K.; Nakano, E.; Yamazaki, N. Real-world efficacy and safety data for dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy in Japanese patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma. J. Dermatol. 2019, 47, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Polkowska, M.; Ekk-Cierniakowski, P.; Czepielewska, E.; Kozłowska-Wojciechowska, M. Efficacy and safety of BRAF inhibitors and anti-CTLA4 antibody in melanoma patients—Real-world data. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018, 75, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ribas, A.; Daud, A.; Pavlick, A.C.; Gonzalez, R.; Lewis, K.D.; Hamid, O.; Gajewski, T.F.; Puzanov, I.; Wongchenko, M.; Rooney, I.; et al. Extended 5-Year Follow-up Results of a Phase Ib Study (BRIM7) of Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib in BRAF-Mutant Melanoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Larkin, J.; Brown, M.P.; Arance, A.M.; Hauschild, A.; Queirolo, P.; Del Vecchio, M.; Ascierto, P.A.; Krajsová, I.; Schachter, J.; Neyns, B.; et al. An open-label, multicentre safety study of vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma: Final analysis and a validated prognostic scoring system. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 107, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gogas, H.J.; Flaherty, K.T.; Dummer, R.; Ascierto, P.A.; Arance, A.; Mandala, M.; Liszkay, G.; Garbe, C.; Schadendorf, D.; Krajsova, I.; et al. Adverse events associated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in the COLUMBUS study: Incidence, course and management. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 119, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Robert, C.; Flaherty, K.; Nathan, P.; Hersey, P.; Garbe, C.; Milhem, M.; Demidov, L.; Mohr, P.; Hassel, J.C.; Rutkowski, P.; et al. Five-year outcomes from a phase 3 METRIC study in patients with BRAF V600 E/K–mutant advanced or metastatic melanoma. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 109, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kaley, T.; Touat, M.; Subbiah, V.; Hollebecque, A.; Rodon, J.; Lockhart, A.C.; Keedy, V.; Bielle, F.; Hofheinz, R.-D.; Joly, F.; et al. BRAF Inhibition in BRAFV600-Mutant Gliomas: Results From the VE-BASKET Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 3477–3484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Diamond, E.L.; Subbiah, V.; Lockhart, A.C.; Blay, J.-Y.; Puzanov, I.; Chau, I.; Raje, N.S.; Wolf, J.; Erinjeri, J.P.; Torrisi, J.; et al. Vemurafenib for BRAF V600–Mutant Erdheim-Chester Disease and Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, 384–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Odogwu, L.; Mathieu, L.; Blumenthal, G.; Larkins, E.; Goldberg, K.B.; Griffin, N.; Bijwaard, K.; Lee, E.Y.; Philip, R.; Jiang, X.; et al. FDA Approval Summary: Dabrafenib and Trametinib for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers Harboring BRAF V600E Mutations. Oncol. 2018, 23, 740–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Depenni, R.; De Rosa, F.; Greco, S.; Ridolfi, L.; Pellacani, G.; Ponti, G.; Cascinu, S.; Guidoboni, M. Dabrafenib–trametinib combination in ‘field-practice’: An Italian experience. Futur. Oncol. 2018, 14, 2045–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Finn, R.S.; Ahn, D.H.; Javle, M.M.; Tan, B.R.; Weekes, C.D.; Bendell, J.C.; Patnaik, A.; Khan, G.N.; Laheru, D.; Chavira, R.; et al. Phase 1b investigation of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib in patients with advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer. Investig. New Drugs 2018, 36, 1037–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Si, L.; Zhang, X.; Xu, Z.; Jiang, Q.; Bu, L.; Wang, X.; Mao, L.; Zhang, W.; Richie, N.; Guo, J. Vemurafenib in Chinese patients with BRAFV600 mutation–positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma: An open-label, multicenter phase I study. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Hauschild, A.; Dummer, R.; Schadendorf, D.; Santinami, M.; Atkinson, V.; Mandalà, M.; Chiarion-Sileni, V.; Larkin, J.; Nyakas, M.; Dutriaux, C.; et al. Longer Follow-Up Confirms Relapse-Free Survival Benefit With Adjuvant Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in Patients With Resected BRAF V600–Mutant Stage III Melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 3441–3449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maio, M.; Lewis, K.; Demidov, L.; Mandalà, M.; Bondarenko, I.; Ascierto, P.A.; Herbert, C.; Mackiewicz, A.; Rutkowski, P.; Guminski, A.; et al. Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM8): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Algarra, S.M.; Soriano, V.; Fernández-Morales, L.; Berciano-Guerrero, M.; Mujika, K.; Manzano, J.L.; Hernández, T.P.; Soria, A.; Rodríguez-Abreu, D.; Arranz, E.E.; et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib for compassionate use in metastatic melanoma. Medicine 2017, 96, e9523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hallmeyer, S.; Gonzalez, R.; Lawson, D.H.; Cranmer, L.D.; Linette, G.P.; Puzanov, I.; Taback, B.; Cowey, C.L.; Ribas, A.; Daniels, G.A.; et al. Vemurafenib treatment for patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage IIIC or metastatic melanoma and activating exon 15 BRAF mutations other than V600E. Melanoma Res. 2017, 27, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Momtaz, P.; Harding, J.J.; Ariyan, C.; Coit, D.G.; Merghoub, T.; Gasmi, B.; You, D.; Viale, A.; Panageas, K.S.; Samoila, A.; et al. Four-month course of adjuvant dabrafenib in patients with surgically resected stage IIIC melanoma characterized by a BRAFV600E/K mutation. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 105000–105010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Czirbesz, K.; Gorka, E.; Balatoni, T.; Pánczél, G.; Melegh, K.; Kovács, P.; Gézsi, A.; Liszkay, G. Efficacy of Vemurafenib Treatment in 43 Metastatic Melanoma Patients with BRAF Mutation. Single-Institute Retrospective Analysis, Early Real-Life Survival Data. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 2017, 25, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gorka, E.; Fabó, D.; Gézsi, A.; Czirbesz, K.; Fedorcsák, I.; Liszkay, G. Dabrafenib Therapy in 30 Patients with Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain: A Single-centre Controlled Retrospective Study in Hungary. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 2017, 24, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Blank, C.U.; Larkin, J.; Arance, A.M.; Hauschild, A.; Queirolo, P.; Del Vecchio, M.; Ascierto, P.A.; Krajsova, I.; Schachter, J.; Neyns, B.; et al. Open-label, multicentre safety study of vemurafenib in 3219 patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic melanoma: 2-year follow-up data and long-term responders' analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 2017, 79, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Dummer, R.; Schadendorf, D.; Ascierto, P.A.; Arance, A.; Dutriaux, C.; Di Giacomo, A.M.; Rutkowski, P.; Del Vecchio, M.; Gutzmer, R.; Mandala, M.; et al. Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 435–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Long, G.V.; Flaherty, K.T.; Stroyakovskiy, D.; Gogas, H.; Levchenko, E.; de Braud, F.; Larkin, J.; Garbe, C.; Jouary, T.; Hauschild, A.; et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: Long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, 1631–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ikeda, M.; Ioka, T.; Fukutomi, A.; Morizane, C.; Kasuga, A.; Takahashi, H.; Todaka, A.; Okusaka, T.; Creasy, C.L.; Gorman, S.; et al. Efficacy and safety of trametinib in Japanese patients with advanced biliary tract cancers refractory to gemcitabine. Cancer Sci. 2017, 109, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Planchard, D.; Smit, E.F.; Groen, H.J.M.; Mazieres, J.; Besse, B.; Helland, Å.; Giannone, V.; D’Amelio, A.M., Jr.; Zhang, P.; Mookerjee, B.; et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: An open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 1307–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Davies, M.A.; Saiag, P.; Robert, C.; Grob, J.-J.; Flaherty, K.T.; Arance, A.; Chiarion Sileni, V.; Thomas, L.; Lesimple, T.; Mortier, L.; et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases (COMBI-MB): A multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schreuer, M.; Jansen, Y.; Planken, S.; Chevolet, I.; Seremet, T.; Kruse, V.; Neyns, B. Combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAF and MEK inhibitor pretreated patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma: An open-label, single arm, dual-centre, phase 2 clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. McArthur, G.; Maio, M.; Arance, A.; Nathan, P.; Blank, C.; Avril, M.-F.; Garbe, C.; Hauschild, A.; Schadendorf, D.; Hamid, O.; et al. Vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma patients with brain metastases: An open-label, single-arm, phase 2, multicentre study. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, 634–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Uppaluri, R.; Winkler, A.E.; Lin, T.; Law, J.H.; Haughey, B.H.; Nussenbaum, B.; Paniello, R.C.; Rich, J.T.; Diaz, J.A.; Michel, L.P.; et al. Biomarker and Tumor Responses of Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma to Trametinib: A Phase II Neoadjuvant Window-of-Opportunity Clinical Trial. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 2186–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Cavalieri, S.; Di Guardo, L.; Cimminiello, C.; Bono, A.; Tolomio, E.; Colombetti, A.; Valeri, B.; Di Tolla, G.; de Braud, F.; Del Vecchio, M. Combined Therapy with Dabrafenib and Trametinib in BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma in a Real-Life Setting: The INT Milan Experience. Tumori. J. 2016, 102, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Watanabe, K.; Otsu, S.; Hirashima, Y.; Morinaga, R.; Nishikawa, K.; Hisamatsu, Y.; Shimokata, T.; Inada-Inoue, M.; Shibata, T.; Takeuchi, H.; et al. A phase I study of binimetinib (MEK162) in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2016, 77, 1157–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Arance, A.M.; Berrocal, A.; Lopez-Martin, J.A.; de la Cruz-Merino, L.; Soriano, V.; Algarra, S.M.; Alonso, L.; Cerezuela, P.; La Orden, B.; Espinosa, E. Safety of vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600 mutated metastatic melanoma: The Spanish experience. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2016, 18, 1147–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cocorocchio, E.; Gandini, S.; Alfieri, S.; Battaglia, A.; Pennacchioli, E.; Tosti, G.; Spadola, G.; Barberis, M.; Di Leo, M.; Riviello, C.; et al. Dabrafenib in metastatic melanoma: A monocentric ‘real life’ experience. Ecancermedicalscience 2016, 10, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Kramkimel, N.; Thomas-Schoemann, A.; Sakji, L.; Golmard, J.; Noe, G.; Regnier-Rosencher, E.; Chapuis, N.; Maubec, E.; Vidal, M.; Avril, M.; et al. Vemurafenib pharmacokinetics and its correlation with efficacy and safety in outpatients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Target. Oncol. 2015, 11, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Brose, M.S.; Cabanillas, M.E.; Cohen, E.E.W.; Wirth, L.J.; Riehl, T.; Yue, H.; Sherman, S.I.; Sherman, E.J. Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600E-positive metastatic or unresectable papillary thyroid cancer refractory to radioactive iodine: A non-randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 1272–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Planchard, D.; Kim, T.M.; Mazieres, J.; Quoix, E.; Riely, G.; Barlesi, F.; Souquet, P.-J.; Smit, E.F.; Groen, H.J.M.; Kelly, R.J.; et al. Dabrafenib in patients with BRAFV600E-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 642–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Rutkowski, P.; Kozak, K.; Mackiewicz, J.; Krzemieniecki, K.; Nawrocki, S.; Wasilewska-Teśluk, E.; Kwinta, Ł.; Wysocki, P.; Koseła-Paterczyk, H.; Świtaj, T. The outcomes of Polish patients with advanced BRAF-positive melanoma treated with vemurafenib in a safety clinical trial. Contemp. Oncol. 2015, 4, 280–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Del Vecchio, M.; Ascierto, P.A.; Mandalà, M.; Sileni, V.C.; Maio, M.; Di Guardo, L.; Simeone, E.; Queirolo, P. Vemurafenib in BRAFV600 mutated metastatic melanoma: A subanalysis of the Italian population of a global safety study. Futur. Oncol. 2015, 11, 1355–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vanneste, L.; Wolter, P.; Oord, J.V.D.; Staš, M.; Garmyn, M. Cutaneous adverse effects of BRAF inhibitors in metastatic malignant melanoma, a prospective study in 20 patients. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2014, 29, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Corcoran, R.B.; Atreya, C.E.; Falchook, G.S.; Kwak, E.L.; Ryan, D.P.; Bendell, J.C.; Hamid, O.; Messersmith, W.A.; Daud, A.; Kurzrock, R.; et al. Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibition With Dabrafenib and Trametinib in BRAF V600–Mutant Colorectal Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 4023–4031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hyman, D.M.; Puzanov, I.; Subbiah, V.; Faris, J.E.; Chau, I.; Blay, J.-Y.; Wolf, J.; Raje, N.S.; Diamond, E.L.; Hollebecque, A.; et al. Vemurafenib in Multiple Nonmelanoma Cancers with BRAF V600 Mutations. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 726–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Harding, J.J.; Catalanotti, F.; Munhoz, R.R.; Cheng, D.T.; Yaqubie, A.; Kelly, N.; McDermott, G.C.; Kersellius, R.; Merghoub, T.; Lacouture, M.E.; et al. A Retrospective Evaluation of Vemurafenib as Treatment for BRAF-Mutant Melanoma Brain Metastases. Oncol. 2015, 20, 789–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Blumenschein, G.; Smit, E.; Planchard, D.; Kim, D.-W.; Cadranel, J.; De Pas, T.; Dunphy, F.; Udud, K.; Ahn, M.-J.; Hanna, N.; et al. A randomized phase II study of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212) compared with docetaxel in KRAS-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 894–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kopetz, S.; Desai, J.; Chan, E.; Hecht, J.R.; O'Dwyer, P.J.; Maru, D.; Morris, V.; Janku, F.; Dasari, A.; Chung, W.; et al. Phase II Pilot Study of Vemurafenib in Patients With Metastatic BRAF-Mutated Colorectal Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 4032–4038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tiacci, E.; Park, J.H.; De Carolis, L.; Chung, S.S.; Broccoli, A.; Scott, S.; Zaja, F.; Devlin, S.; Pulsoni, A.; Chung, Y.R.; et al. Targeting Mutant BRAF in Relapsed or Refractory Hairy-Cell Leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 1733–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dummer, R.; Goldinger, S.M.; Turtschi, C.P.; Eggmann, N.B.; Michielin, O.; Mitchell, L.; Veronese, L.; Hilfiker, P.R.; Felderer, L.; Rinderknecht, J.D. Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma with symptomatic brain metastases: Final results of an open-label pilot study. Eur. J. Cancer 2013, 50, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. McArthur, G.A.; Chapman, P.B.; Robert, C.; Larkin, J.; Haanen, J.B.; Dummer, R.; Ribas, A.; Hogg, D.; Hamid, O.; Ascierto, P.A.; et al. Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAFV600E and BRAFV600K mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM-3): Extended follow-up of a phase 3, randomised, open-label study. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Johnson, D.B.; Flaherty, K.T.; Weber, J.S.; Infante, J.R.; Kim, K.B.; Kefford, R.F.; Hamid, O.; Schuchter, L.; Cebon, J.; Sharfman, W.H.; et al. Combined BRAF (Dabrafenib) and MEK Inhibition (Trametinib) in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutant Melanoma Experiencing Progression With Single-Agent BRAF Inhibitor. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 3697–3704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Fennira, F.; Pagès, C.; Schneider, P.; Sidina, I.; Viguier, M.; Basset-Seguin, N.; Madjlessi-Ezra, N.; Madelaine, I.; Bagot, M.; Battistella, M.; et al. Vemurafenib in the French temporary authorization for use metastatic melanoma cohort. Melanoma Res. 2014, 24, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Flaherty, L.; Hamid, O.; Linette, G.; Schuchter, L.; Hallmeyer, S.; Gonzalez, R.; Cowey, C.L.; Pavlick, A.; Kudrik, F.; Curti, B.; et al. A Single-Arm, Open-Label, Expanded Access Study of Vemurafenib in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma in the United States. Cancer J. 2014, 20, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ascierto, P.A.; Minor, D.; Ribas, A.; Lebbe, C.; O’Hagan, A.; Arya, N.; Guckert, M.; Schadendorf, D.; Kefford, R.F.; Grob, J.-J.; et al. Phase II Trial (BREAK-2) of the BRAF Inhibitor Dabrafenib (GSK2118436) in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 3205–3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kim, K.B.; Kefford, R.; Pavlick, A.C.; Infante, J.R.; Ribas, A.; Sosman, J.A.; Fecher, L.A.; Millward, M.; McArthur, G.A.; Hwu, P.; et al. Phase II Study of the MEK1/MEK2 Inhibitor Trametinib in Patients With Metastatic BRAF-Mutant Cutaneous Melanoma Previously Treated With or Without a BRAF Inhibitor. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 482–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Falchook, G.S.; Lewis, K.D.; Infante, J.R.; Gordon, M.S.; Vogelzang, N.J.; DeMarini, D.J.; Sun, P.; Moy, C.; Szabo, S.A.; Roadcap, L.T.; et al. Activity of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced melanoma: A phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13, 782–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Infante, J.R.; Fecher, L.A.; Falchook, G.S.; Nallapareddy, S.; Gordon, M.S.; Becerra, C.; DeMarini, D.J.; Cox, D.S.; Xu, Y.; Morris, S.R.; et al. Safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and efficacy data for the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib: A phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13, 773–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Long, G.V.; Trefzer, U.; Davies, M.A.; Kefford, R.F.; Ascierto, P.A.; Chapman, P.B.; Puzanov, I.; Hauschild, A.; Robert, C.; Algazi, A.; et al. Dabrafenib in patients with Val600Glu or Val600Lys BRAF-mutant melanoma metastatic to the brain (BREAK-MB): A multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13, 1087–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Flaherty, K.T.; Infante, J.R.; Daud, A.; Gonzalez, R.; Kefford, R.F.; Sosman, J.; Hamid, O.; Schuchter, L.; Cebon, J.; Ibrahim, N.; et al. Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibition in Melanoma with BRAF V600 Mutations. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 1694–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Dummer, R.; Ascierto, P.A.; Gogas, H.J.; Arance, A.; Mandala, M.; Liszkay, G.; Garbe, C.; Schadendorf, D.; Krajsova, I.; Gutzmer, R.; et al. Overall survival in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib (COLUMBUS): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, 1315–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Long, G.V.; Stroyakovskiy, D.; Gogas, H.; Levchenko, E.; de Braud, F.; Larkin, J.; Garbe, C.; Jouary, T.; Hauschild, A.; Grob, J.-J.; et al. Dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib and placebo for Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma: A multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015, 386, 444–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hauschild, A.; Grob, J.-J.; Demidov, L.V.; Jouary, T.; Gutzmer, R.; Millward, M.; Rutkowski, P.; Blank, C.U.; Miller, W.H., Jr.; Kaempgen, E.; et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: A multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012, 380, 358–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sosman, J.A.; Kim, K.B.; Schuchter, L.; Gonzalez, R.; Pavlick, A.C.; Weber, J.S.; McArthur, G.A.; Hutson, T.E.; Moschos, S.J.; Flaherty, K.T.; et al. Survival in BRAF V600–Mutant Advanced Melanoma Treated with Vemurafenib. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ascierto, P.A.; Schadendorf, D.; Berking, C.; Agarwala, S.S.; van Herpen, C.M.; Queirolo, P.; Blank, C.U.; Hauschild, A.; Beck, J.T.; St-Pierre, A.; et al. MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: A non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ribas, A.; Gonzalez, R.; Pavlick, A.; Hamid, O.; Gajewski, T.F.; Daud, A.; Flaherty, L.; Logan, T.; Chmielowski, B.; Lewis, K.; et al. Combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma: A phase 1b study. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 954–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Larkin, J.; Ascierto, P.A.; Dréno, B.; Atkinson, V.; Liszkay, G.; Maio, M.; Mandalà, M.; Demidov, L.; Stroyakovskiy, D.; Thomas, L.; et al. Combined Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib in BRAF-Mutated Melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 1867–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Delord, J.-P.; Robert, C.; Nyakas, M.; McArthur, G.A.; Kudchakar, R.; Mahipal, A.; Yamada, Y.; Sullivan, R.; Arance, A.; Kefford, R.F.; et al. Phase I Dose-Escalation and -Expansion Study of the BRAF Inhibitor Encorafenib (LGX818) in Metastatic BRAF-Mutant Melanoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 5339–5348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Bendell, J.C.; Javle, M.; Bekaii-Saab, T.S.; Finn, R.S.; Wainberg, Z.A.; Laheru, D.A.; Weekes, C.D.; Tan, B.R.; Khan, G.N.; Zalupski, M.M.; et al. A phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study of binimetinib (MEK162), a potent and selective oral MEK1/2 inhibitor. Br. J. Cancer 2017, 116, 575–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Ascierto, P.A.; McArthur, G.A.; Dréno, B.; Atkinson, V.; Liszkay, G.; Di Giacomo, A.M.; Mandalà, M.; Demidov, L.; Stroyakovskiy, D.; Thomas, L.; et al. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): Updated efficacy results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 1248–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Planchard, D.; Besse, B.; Groen, H.J.M.; Souquet, P.-J.; Quoix, E.; Baik, C.S.; Barlesi, F.; Kim, T.M.; Mazieres, J.; Novello, S.; et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously treated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: An open-label, multicentre phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 984–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Sterne, J.A.C.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savović, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Meta-Analysis: Formulating, Evaluating, Combining, and Reporting. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10070677/ (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  112. Sterne, J.A.; Egger, M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2001, 54, 1046–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ Br. Med. J. 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Yang, H.; Higgins, B.; Kolinsky, K.; Packman, K.; Go, Z.; Iyer, R.; Kolis, S.; Zhao, S.; Lee, R.; Grippo, J.F.; et al. RG7204 (PLX4032), a Selective BRAFV600E Inhibitor, Displays Potent Antitumor Activity in Preclinical Melanoma Models. Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 5518–5527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Gentilcore, G.; Madonna, G.; Mozzillo, N.; Ribas, A.; Cossu, A.G.M.; Palmieri, G.; Ascierto, P.A. Effect of dabrafenib on melanoma cell lines harbouring the BRAF V600D/R mutations. BMC Cancer 2013, 13, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Oberholzer, P.A.; Kee, D.; Dziunycz, P.; Sucker, A.; Kamsukom, N.; Jones, R.; Roden, C.; Chalk, C.J.; Ardlie, K.; Palescandolo, E.; et al. RAS Mutations Are Associated With the Development of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Tumors in Patients Treated With RAF Inhibitors. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Su, F.; Viros, A.; Milagre, C.; Trunzer, K.; Bollag, G.; Spleiss, O.; Reis-Filho, J.S.; Kong, X.; Koya, R.C.; Flaherty, K.T.; et al. RAS Mutations in Cutaneous Squamous-Cell Carcinomas in Patients Treated with BRAF Inhibitors. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Chang, L.; Karin, M. Mammalian MAP kinase signalling cascades. Nature 2001, 410, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Leonard, J.T.; Raess, P.W.; Dunlap, J.; Hayes-Lattin, B.; Tyner, J.W.; Traer, E. Functional and genetic screening of acute myeloid leukemia associated with mediastinal germ cell tumor identifies MEK inhibitor as an active clinical agent. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2016, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 15 00141 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of study inclusion process [113].
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of study inclusion process [113].
Cancers 15 00141 g001
Cancers 15 00141 g002 550
Figure 2. Overall incidences of all-grade adverse events according to treatment regimen.
Figure 2. Overall incidences of all-grade adverse events according to treatment regimen.
Cancers 15 00141 g002
Cancers 15 00141 g003 550
Figure 3. Overall incidences of all-grade adverse events for every treatment regimen.
Figure 3. Overall incidences of all-grade adverse events for every treatment regimen.
Cancers 15 00141 g003
Cancers 15 00141 g004 550
Figure 4. Summary estimates of incidence (%) and corresponding 95% confidence interval of grade 1–2 adverse events according to treatment. ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; C: Cobimetinib; D: Dabrafenib; E: Encorafenib; EF: ejection fraction; T: Trametinib; V: Vemurafenib.
Figure 4. Summary estimates of incidence (%) and corresponding 95% confidence interval of grade 1–2 adverse events according to treatment. ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; C: Cobimetinib; D: Dabrafenib; E: Encorafenib; EF: ejection fraction; T: Trametinib; V: Vemurafenib.
Cancers 15 00141 g004
Cancers 15 00141 g005 550
Figure 5. Summary estimates of incidence (%) and corresponding 95% confidence interval of adverse events of grade 3 or higher according to treatment. ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; C: Cobimetinib; D: Dabrafenib; E: Encorafenib; EF: ejection fraction; T: Trametinib; V: Vemurafenib.
Figure 5. Summary estimates of incidence (%) and corresponding 95% confidence interval of adverse events of grade 3 or higher according to treatment. ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; C: Cobimetinib; D: Dabrafenib; E: Encorafenib; EF: ejection fraction; T: Trametinib; V: Vemurafenib.
Cancers 15 00141 g005
Cancers 15 00141 g006 550
Figure 6. Summary estimates of dose reduction (A) and treatment interruption (B) according to treatment regimen.
Figure 6. Summary estimates of dose reduction (A) and treatment interruption (B) according to treatment regimen.
Cancers 15 00141 g006
Cancers 15 00141 g007 550
Figure 7. Correlation between incidence of all-grade adverse events and oncological outcomes.
Figure 7. Correlation between incidence of all-grade adverse events and oncological outcomes.
Cancers 15 00141 g007
Cancers 15 00141 g008 550
Figure 8. Therapeutic hypotheses amongst the three pharmacological doublets (V + C: Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib; D + T: Dabrafenib plus Trametinib; E + B: Encorafenib plus Binimetinib) under analysis, considering the clinical scenario and the grade 3–5 side effects’ incidence (I).
Figure 8. Therapeutic hypotheses amongst the three pharmacological doublets (V + C: Vemurafenib plus Cobimetinib; D + T: Dabrafenib plus Trametinib; E + B: Encorafenib plus Binimetinib) under analysis, considering the clinical scenario and the grade 3–5 side effects’ incidence (I).
Cancers 15 00141 g008
Table
Table 1. Overall incidence of any grade and G3–G5 adverse events according to treatment.
Table 1. Overall incidence of any grade and G3–G5 adverse events according to treatment.
TreatmentAny Grade
% (95% CI)		G3–G5
% (95% CI)
Dabrafenib85% (72–89%)50% (45–54%)
Trametinib97% (92–99%)36% (17–60%)
Dabrafenib + Trametinib95% (90–98%)43% (36–50%)
Encorafenib99% (96–100%)68% (61–74%)
Binimetinib97% (94–99%)72% (62–81%)
Encorafenib + Binimetinib98% (95–99%)68% (61–75%)
Vemurafenib94% (91–96%)51% (46–57%)
Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib98% (96–99%)72% (65–79%)
CI: confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Garutti, M.; Bergnach, M.; Polesel, J.; Palmero, L.; Pizzichetta, M.A.; Puglisi, F. BRAF and MEK Inhibitors and Their Toxicities: A Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2023, 15, 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15010141

AMA Style

Garutti M, Bergnach M, Polesel J, Palmero L, Pizzichetta MA, Puglisi F. BRAF and MEK Inhibitors and Their Toxicities: A Meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2023; 15(1):141. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15010141

Chicago/Turabian Style

Garutti, Mattia, Melissa Bergnach, Jerry Polesel, Lorenza Palmero, Maria Antonietta Pizzichetta, and Fabio Puglisi. 2023. "BRAF and MEK Inhibitors and Their Toxicities: A Meta-Analysis" Cancers 15, no. 1: 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15010141

APA Style

Garutti, M., Bergnach, M., Polesel, J., Palmero, L., Pizzichetta, M. A., & Puglisi, F. (2023). BRAF and MEK Inhibitors and Their Toxicities: A Meta-Analysis. Cancers, 15(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15010141

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop