Search

Summary: The lack of effective treatment options for advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (NCCRCC) is a critical unmet clinical need. Applying a high-throughput drug screen to multiple human kidney cancer cells, we identify the combination of the VEGFR-MET inhibitor cabozantinib and the SRC inhibitor dasatinib acts synergistically in cells to markedly reduce cell viability. Importantly, the combination is well tolerated and causes tumor regression in vivo. Transcriptional and phosphoproteomic profiling reveals that the combination converges to downregulate the MAPK-ERK signaling pathway, a result not predicted by single-agent analysis alone. Correspondingly, the addition of a MEK inhibitor synergizes with either dasatinib or cabozantinib to increase its efficacy. This study, by using approved, clinically relevant drugs, provides the rationale for the design of effective combination treatments in NCCRCC that can be rapidly translated to the clinic.

BackgroundThe combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has become standard of care in the treatment of metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Clinical factors for an early prediction of tumor response are rare. The present study investigated the association between the development of an early exanthema induced by vemurafenib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and therapy outcome.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective study included patients with BRAF V600-mutated irresectable AJCC-v8 stage IIIC/D to IV metastatic melanoma who received treatment with vemurafenib (VEM) or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (COBIVEM). The development of an early exanthema within six weeks after therapy start and its grading according to CTCAEv4.0 criteria was correlated to therapy outcome in terms of best overall response, progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 422 patients from 16 centers were included (VEM, n=299; COBIVEM, n=123). 20.4% of VEM and 43.1% of COBIVEM patients developed an early exanthema. In the VEM cohort, objective responders (CR/PR) more frequently presented with an early exanthema than non-responders (SD/PD); 59.0% versus 38.7%; p=0.0027. However, median PFS and OS did not differ between VEM patients with or without an early exanthema (PFS, 6.9 versus 6.0 months, p=0.65; OS, 11.0 versus 12.4 months, p=0.69). In the COBIVEM cohort, 66.0% of objective responders had an early exanthema compared to 54.3% of non-responders (p=0.031). Median survival times were significantly longer for patients who developed an early exanthema compared to patients who did not (PFS, 9.7 versus 5.6 months, p=0.013; OS, not reached versus 11.6 months, p=0.0061). COBIVEM patients with a mild early exanthema (CTCAEv4.0 grade 1-2) had a superior survival outcome as compared to COBIVEM patients with a severe (CTCAEv4.0 grade 3-4) or non early exanthema, respectively (p=0.047). This might be caused by the fact that 23.6% of patients with severe exanthema underwent a dose reduction or discontinuation of COBIVEM compared to only 8.9% of patients with mild exanthema.ConclusionsThe development of an early exanthema within 6 weeks after treatment start indicates a favorable therapy outcome upon vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Patients presenting with an early exanthema should therefore be treated with adequate supportive measures to provide that patients can stay on treatment.

Background: The combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has become standard of care in the treatment of metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Clinical factors for an early prediction of tumor response are rare. The present study investigated the association between the development of an early exanthema induced by vemurafenib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and therapy outcome. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with BRAF V600-mutated irresectable AJCC-v8 stage IIIC/D to IV metastatic melanoma who received treatment with vemurafenib (VEM) or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (COBIVEM). The development of an early exanthema within six weeks after therapy start and its grading according to CTCAEv4.0 criteria was correlated to therapy outcome in terms of best overall response, progression-free (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 422 patients from 16 centers were included (VEM, n=299; COBIVEM, n=123). 20.4% of VEM and 43.1% of COBIVEM patients developed an early exanthema. In the VEM cohort, objective responders (CR/PR) more frequently presented with an early exanthema than non-responders (SD/PD); 59.0% versus 38.7%; p=0.0027. However, median PFS and OS did not differ between VEM patients with or without an early exanthema (PFS, 6.9 versus 6.0 months, p=0.65; OS, 11.0 versus 12.4 months, p=0.69). In the COBIVEM cohort, 66.0% of objective responders had an early exanthema compared to 54.3% of non-responders (p=0.031). Median survival times were significantly longer for patients who developed an early exanthema compared to patients who did not (PFS, 9.7 versus 5.6 months, p=0.013; OS, not reached versus 11.6 months, p=0.0061). COBIVEM patients with a mild early exanthema (CTCAEv4.0 grade 1-2) had a superior survival outcome as compared to COBIVEM patients with a severe (CTCAEv4.0 grade 3-4) or non early exanthema, respectively (p=0.047). This might be caused by the fact that 23.6% of patients with severe exanthema underwent a dose reduction or discontinuation of COBIVEM compared to only 8.9% of patients with mild exanthema. Conclusions: The development of an early exanthema within 6 weeks after treatment start indicates a favorable therapy outcome upon vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Patients presenting with an early exanthema should therefore be treated with adequate supportive measures to provide that patients can stay on treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance to standard chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is associated with upregulation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. Cobimetinib, an MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK) inhibitor, may increase sensitivity to taxanes and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors. COLET is a three-cohort phase II study evaluating first-line cobimetinib plus chemotherapy, with or without atezolizumab, in patients with locally advanced or mTNBC. Patients were ≥18 years with locally advanced or mTNBC. Following a safety run-in, patients in cohort I were randomized 1:1 to cobimetinib (60 mg, D3-D23 of each 28-day cycle) or placebo, plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, D1, 8, and 15). Additional patients were randomized (1:1) to cohort II or III to receive cobimetinib plus atezolizumab (840 mg, D1 and D15) and either paclitaxel (cohort II) or nab-paclitaxel [cohort III (100 mg/m2, D1, D8, and D15)]. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (cohort I) and confirmed objective response rate (ORR) (cohorts II/III). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. In the expansion stages, median PFS was 5.5 months for cobimetinib/paclitaxel versus 3.8 months for placebo/paclitaxel in cohort I [hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.24; P = 0.25]. In cohort I, ORR was 38.3% (95% CI 24.40-52.20) for cobimetinib/paclitaxel and 20.9% (95% CI 8.77-33.09) for placebo/paclitaxel; ORRs in cohorts II and III were 34.4% (95% CI 18.57-53.19) and 29.0% (95% CI 14.22-48.04), respectively. Diarrhea was the most common grade ≥3 adverse events across all cohorts. Cobimetinib added to paclitaxel did not lead to a statistically significant increase in PFS or ORR, although a nonsignificant trend toward a numerical increase was observed. Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and a taxane did not appear to increase ORR. This demonstrates the potential activity of a combinatorial MEK inhibitor, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in this difficult-to-treat population. • Cobimetinib plus paclitaxel trended toward a numerical increase in progression-free survival and objective response rate. • The triplet combination of atezolizumab, cobimetinib, and taxane did not appear to increase objective response rate. • The triplet combination showed a trend toward improved objective response rate in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive disease. • These results demonstrate the potential activity of combination immunotherapy for this difficult-to-treat patient subgroup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emerging data suggest that the combination of MEK inhibitors and immunotherapeutic agents may result in improved efficacy in melanoma. We evaluated whether combining MEK inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition was more efficacious than immune checkpoint inhibition alone in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 wild-type advanced melanoma. IMspire170 was an international, randomized, open-label, phase III study. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive cobimetinib (60 mg, days 1-21) plus anti-programmed death-ligand 1 atezolizumab (840 mg every 2 weeks) in 28-day cycles or anti-programmed death-1 pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) alone until loss of clinical benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. Between 11 December 2017, and 29 January 2019, 446 patients were randomized to receive cobimetinib plus atezolizumab (n = 222) or pembrolizumab (n = 224). Median follow-up was 7.1 months [interquartile range (IQR) 4.8-9.9] for cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and 7.2 months (IQR 4.9-10.1) for pembrolizumab. Median PFS was 5.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8-7.2] with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab versus 5.7 months (95% CI 3.7-9.6) with pembrolizumab [stratified hazard ratio 1.15 (95% CI 0.88-1.50); P = 0.30]. Hazard ratios for PFS were consistent across prespecified subgroups. In exploratory biomarker analyses, higher tumor mutational burden was associated with improved clinical outcomes in both treatment arms. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) were increased blood creatine phosphokinase (10.0% with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab versus 0.9% with pembrolizumab), diarrhea (7.7% versus 1.9%), rash (6.8% versus 0.9%), hypertension (6.4% versus 3.7%), and dermatitis acneiform (5.0% versus 0). Serious AEs occurred in 44.1% of patients with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and 20.8% with pembrolizumab. Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab did not improve PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600 wild-type advanced melanoma. • Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab did not improve PFS versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in BRAF V600 wild-type advanced melanoma. • Results were consistent across prespecified subgroups according to known prognostic factors. • Higher tumor mutational burden was associated with improved clinical outcomes in both treatment arms. • As expected, the combination was associated with a higher incidence of AEs than pembrolizumab monotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cobimetinib is a kinase inhibitor indicated for use in combination with vemurafenib for treatment of unresectable/metastatic melanoma with specific BRAF mutations. Cobimetinib is extensively metabolized in liver; thus, patients with hepatic impairment (HI) might have increased cobimetinib exposure. In this study, we investigated the impact of HI on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of cobimetinib. Subjects with normal hepatic function and mild to severe HI were enrolled. All subjects received a single oral dose of 10 mg cobimetinib, and serial blood samples were collected at specified times. Cobimetinib PK in subjects with mild and moderate HI was similar to that in those with normal liver function. However, subjects with severe HI, on average, showed ∼30% lower total AUC0‐∞ and ∼2‐fold higher unbound AUC0‐∞ compared with those with normal hepatic function. These exposure differences can be explained by lower albumin levels observed in subjects with severe HI, the strong correlation between albumin level and the unbound fraction and the general PK variability of cobimetinib. In addition, previous studies with cobimetinib showed a lack of an exposure‐response relationship for efficacy and safety. Therefore, collectively, our results suggest that the starting dose for patients with hepatic impairment can be the same as that for those with normal hepatic function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Mutations in the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK pathway are detected in 50% of colorectal cancer cases and play a crucial role in cancer development and progression. Cobimetinib is a MEK inhibitor approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma and inhibits the cell viability of other types of cancer cells. Methods: HCT116 colorectal cancer cells were treated with cobimetinib, and MTT assay, colony formation assay, and flow cytometry were used to evaluate cell viability, cell cycle, and apoptosis, respectively. The expression of genes associated with the cell cycle and apoptosis were evaluated by quantitative real-time PCR and western blotting. To explore use of cobimetinib in colorectal cancer treatment and further understand its mechanisms, RNA-seq technology was used to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between cobimetinib-treated and untreated HCT116 cells. Furthermore, we compared these DEGs with Gene Expression Omnibus data from colorectal cancer tissues and normal colonic epithelial tissues. Results: We found that cobimetinib not only inhibited cell proliferation but also induced G1 phase arrest and apoptosis in HCT116 colorectal cancer cells, suggesting that cobimetinib may useful in colorectal cancer therapy. After cobimetinib treatment, 3,495 DEGs were obtained, including 2,089 upregulated genes and 1,406 downregulated genes, and most of these DEGs were enriched in the cell cycle, DNA replication, and DNA damage repair pathways. Our results revealed that some genes with high expression in colorectal cancer tissues were downregulated by cobimetinib in HCT116 cells, including CCND1, E2F1, CDC25C, CCNE2, MYC, and PCNA. These genes have vital roles in DNA replication and the cell cycle. Furthermore, genes with low expression in colorectal cancer tissues were upregulated by cobimetinib, including PRKCA, PI3K, RTK, and PKC. Based on our results, the PKC and PI3K pathways were activated after cobimetinib treatment, and inhibition of these two pathways can increase the cytotoxicity of cobimetinib in HCT116 cells. Notably, cobimetinib appeared to enhance the efficacy of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) by decreasing TYMS expression, high expression of which is responsible for 5-FU resistance in colorectal cancer. Conclusions: Our results suggest the potential use of cobimetinib in colorectal cancer therapy.

A 38-year-old man with a diagnosis of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma was referred to our clinic. He had been under treatment with 60-mg oral cobimetinib daily for 21 days/7 day off in combination with 960 mg vemurafenib twice daily. The patient had symptoms of blurred vision and photophobia in his right eye. A slit-lamp examination revealed bilateral central corneal stromal opacity and epithelial microcystic edema Involvement was more severe in the right eye compared with the left eye. Fourteen days after the first visit, the patient's symptoms and slit-lamp findings were largely resolved. We suggest that endothelium pump failure was involved in this acute corneal decompensation case similar to the mechanism in retinal pigment epithelium.

Introduction: Recently, the term "Diffuse glioma, BRAF V600E-mutant" has been recommended for IDH-wildtype gliomas with BRAF p.V600E mutation and without CDKN2A/B deletion. However, additional alterations in gliomas that coexist with BRAF-mutations are poorly defined. Methods: We analyzed next-generation sequencing results in 315 cancer-associated genes for 372 gliomas from our institution (2010 to 2017). In addition, we reviewed IDH-WT gliomas with mutation and copy-number alterations available in cBioPortal, to further characterize BRAF-mutant gliomas. Results: Seventeen (4.6%) showed BRAF mutations. Tumor types included 8 glioblastomas, 2 epithelioid glioblastomas (E-GBM), 2 pleomorphic xanthoastrocytomas (PXA), 1 anaplastic oligodendroglioma, 1 diffuse astrocytoma, and 3 pilocytic astrocytomas. Fifty-three percent (53%) of cases exhibited BRAF-alterations other than p.V600E. The majority of the tumors were localized in the temporal lobe (52.9%). In addition to BRAF mutations, glioblastomas showed concomitant mutations in TP53 (3/8), CDKN2A/B-loss (6/8), TERT-promoter (6/8), and/or PTEN (5/8). Both E-GBMs and PXAs showed CDKN2A/B-loss and BRAF p.V600E with absence of TERTp, TP53, and PTEN mutations. Similar findings were observed in BRAF-mutant infiltrating gliomas from cBioPortal. Conclusions: Knowledge of additional alterations that co-occur with BRAF-mutations in gliomas may improve diagnosis and help identify patients that could benefit from targeted therapies. Furthermore, we provide examples of two patients whose tumors responded to BRAF pathway inhibitors, arguing in favor of these therapies in patients with BRAF-mutant gliomas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The limited effectiveness and high toxicity of current treatments in osteosarcoma necessitate new therapeutic strategy. Cobimetinib is a FDA-approved MEK inhibitor and is clinically used in combination with standard of care to treat melanomas. Here, we report that targeted MEK inhibition by cobimetinib enhances doxorubicin's efficacy in osteosarcoma models. We found that cobimetinib potently inhibited growth and survival of osteosarcoma cells. We revealed that cobimetinib had anti-metastasis activity as it inhibited osteosarcoma cell migration. Notably, the effective concentrations of cobimetinib are clinically achievable. We further found that cells with the most sensitivity had highest p-ERK and cells with the least sensitivity had lowest p-ERK, suggesting the possible correlation of ERK activation with cobimetinib sensitivity in osteosarcoma. We further confirmed that inhibition of MEK/ERK signaling pathway is the mechanism of cobimetinib's action in osteosarcoma, leading to inhibition of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and anti-apoptotic pathway, as well as activation of pro-apoptotic pathway. Using xenograft mice model, we found that cobimetinib at the tolerable dose significantly inhibited osteosarcoma formation and growth. In addition, the combination of cobimetinib and doxorubicin at sublethal dose completely arrested tumor growth without further progression. The ability of cobimetinib in enhancing doxorubicin's efficacy in osteosarcoma models makes cobimetinib as a useful addition to the treatment armamentarium for osteosarcoma. Our findings also emphasize the therapeutic value of MEK/ERK pathway to improve the clinical management of osteosarcoma. • Cobimetinib is active against osteosarcoma cells. • Cobimetinib sensitizes osteosarcoma to doxorubicin treatment. • ERK activation level correlates with osteosarcoma sensitivity to cobimetinib. • Cobimetinib suppresses MEK/ERK, FAK, Bcl-2 signaling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Retinopathy is a common adverse event with mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MEK) inhibitors. Little is known about the pathophysiology of MEK inhibitor-associated retinopathy (MEKAR). Since MEKAR has many similarities to central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR), they may share common risk factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between baseline characteristics and MEKAR in melanoma patients initiating MEK inhibitor treatment. Methods: Data from patients treated with cobimetinib and vemurafenib for advanced melanoma in the coBRIM trial were subjected to secondary analysis. Consistent with CSCR risk factors, assessed baseline characteristics included: age, gender, past ocular disease, weight, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and corticosteroid use. Associations between characteristics and retinopathy events (any grade and symptomatic) were evaluated using univariate logistic regression and represented as odds ratios (OR). Results: A total of 247 patients were treated with cobimetinib and vemurafenib, of whom 72 (29%) had retinopathy of any grade and 33 (13%) had symptomatic retinopathy. Patients with a history of ocular disease were at significantly higher risk of retinopathy (any grade, 44%; symptomatic, 22%) than those with no ocular disease history (any grade, 22%; symptomatic, 10%). Individuals with a history of ocular inflammation or infection were at highest risk: 4 of 5 developed symptomatic retinopathy during MEK inhibitor therapy. Increased age was associated with a higher risk of any grade retinopathy {decade increase OR [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.03 (1.01–1.05); p = 0.009}, while increasing eGFR was significantly associated with a decreased risk of any grade retinopathy [0.98 (0.96–0.99); p = 0.004]; the associations were not statistically significant with symptomatic retinopathy. Other assessed CSCR risk factors were not significantly associated with MEKAR. Conclusion: Age, glomerular filtration rate and history of ocular disease (particularly inflammatory eye disease) were associated with a risk of MEK inhibitor induced retinopathy. Patients who are at increased risk of MEKAR may benefit from more regular ophthalmologic assessment during treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A sensitive and selective ultra‐high performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC–MS/MS) method for the simultaneous determination of seven oral oncolytics (two PARP inhibitors, i.e. olaparib and niraparib, and five tyrosine kinase inhibitors, i.e. cobimetinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib and regorafenib, plus its active metabolite regorafenib M2) in EDTA plasma was developed and validated. Stable isotope‐labelled internal standards were used for each analyte. A simple protein precipitation method was performed with acetonitrile. The LC–MS/MS system consisted of an Acquity H‐Class UPLC system, coupled to a Xevo TQ‐S micro tandem mass spectrometer. The compounds were separated on a Waters CORTECS UPLC C18 column (2.1 × 50 mm, 1.6 μm particle size) and eluted with a gradient elution system. The ions were detected in the multiple reaction monitoring mode. The method was validated for cobimetinib, cabozantinib, dabrafenib, niraparib, olaparib, vemurafenib, regorafenib and regorafenib M2 over the ranges 6–1000, 100–5000, 10–4000, 200–2000, 200–20,000, 5000–100,000, 500–10,000 and 500–10,000 μg/L, respectively. Within‐day accuracy values for all analytes ranged from 86.8 to 115.0% with a precision of <10.4%. Between‐day accuracy values ranged between 89.7 and 111.9% with a between‐day precision of <7.4%. The developed method was successfully used for guiding therapy with therapeutic drug monitoring in cancer patients and clinical research programs in our laboratory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatocellular carcinoma which is featured with the extensive vascularization is the third most frequent cause of cancer-related deaths with limited therapeutic options, particularly for advanced disease. Cobimetinib, a MEK inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of melanomas with a BRAF mutation. In this work, we investigated the efficacy of cobimetinib in sensitive and resistant HCC cells. Using a panel of HCC cell lines and normal hepatocellular cells as control, we showed that cobimetinib is active against HCC cells and spare normal hepatocellular cells. Cobimetinib at nanomolar concentration inhibited proliferation and induced apoptosis in sorafenib-resistant HCC cells (Hep3B-r), suggesting its ability to overcome HCC resistance to standard of care. This was further demonstrated by our results that cobimetinib significantly augmented the inhibitory effects of sorafenib and doxorubicin in HCC cells. Notably, cobimetinib dose-dependently inhibited tumor angiogenesis by inhibiting HCC endothelial cell (HCCEC) growth, survival and capillary network work formation. Cobimetinib suppressed ERK/RSK without affecting JNK or p38 signaling pathways in Hep3B-r and HCCEC cells. In addition, cobimetinib negatively influenced the apoptosis pathways by increasing pro-apoptotic protein Bim and decreasing anti-apoptotic proteins Mcl-1 and Bcl-2. In addition, we validated the in vitro findings in HCC xenograft mouse model and demonstrated that cobimetinib inhibited ERK signaling, promoted apoptosis, and was active against resistant HCC growth and angiogenesis in vivo , without causing significant toxicity in mice. Our findings support the clinical trials of cobimetinib for HCC treatment and highlight the therapeutic value of inhibiting MEK/ERK/RSK to overcome HCC resistance. • Cobimetinib is selectively against sensitive and resistant HCC cells. • Cobimetinib is active against HCC endothelial cells. • Cobimetinib suppresses ERK signaling and affects molecules involved in apoptosis. • Cobimetinib inhibits growth, angiogenesis and ERK signaling in resistant HCC models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments. The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57). Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice. • The network meta-analysis for advanced melanoma included nineteen treatment options. • For treatment-related adverse events, glycoprotein 100, ipilimumab plus glycoprotein 100 and nivolumab were most favourable. • For progression-free survival, dabrafenib plus trametinib and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib were most favourable. • The most favourable treatments for progression-free survival had less favourable safety profiles. • For overall survival, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most favourable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BRAF and MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) combinations are currently the standard treatment for patients with BRAFV600 mutant metastatic melanoma. Since the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK-pathway is crucial for the function of different immune cells, we postulated an effect on their function and thus interference with anti-tumor immunity. Therefore, we examined the influence of BRAFi/MEKi, either as single agent or in combination, on the maturation of monocyte-derived dendritic cells (moDCs) and their interaction with T cells. DCs matured in the presence of vemurafenib or vemurafenib/cobimetinib altered their cytokine secretion and surface marker expression profile. Upon the antigen-specific stimulation of CD8+ and CD4+ T cells with these DCs or with T2.A1 cells in the presence of BRAFi/MEKi, we detected a lower expression of activation markers on and a lower cytokine secretion by these T cells. However, treatment with any of the inhibitors alone or in combination did not change the avidity of CD8+ T cells in peptide titration assays with T2.A1 cells. T-helper cell/DC interaction is a bi-directional process that normally results in DC activation. Vemurafenib and vemurafenib/cobimetinib completely abolished the helper T-cell-mediated upregulation of CD70, CD80, and CD86 but not CD25 on the DCs. The combination of dabrafenib/trametinib affected DC maturation and activation as well as T-cell activation less than combined vemurafenib/cobimetinib did. Hence, for a potential combination with immunotherapy, our data indicate the superiority of dabrafenib/trametinib treatment.

Abstract Background Serous chorioretinopathy has been associated with MEK inhibitors, including cobimetinib. We describe the clinical features of serous retinopathy observed with cobimetinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutated melanoma treated in the Phase III coBRIM study. Methods In the coBRIM study, 493 patients were treated in two randomly assigned treatment groups: cobimetinib and vemurafenib (n = 247) or vemurafenib (n = 246). All patients underwent prospective ophthalmic examinations at screening, at regular intervals during the study, and whenever ocular symptoms developed. Patients with serous retinopathy were identified in the study database using a group of relevant and synonymous adverse event terms. Results Eighty-six serous retinopathy events were reported in 70 patients (79 events in 63 cobimetinib and vemurafenib-treated patients vs seven events in seven vemurafenib-treated patients). Most patients with serous retinopathy identified by ophthalmic examination had no symptoms or had mild symptoms, among them reduced visual acuity, blurred vision, dyschromatopsia, and photophobia. Serous retinopathy usually occurred early during cobimetinib and vemurafenib treatment; median time to onset was 1.0 month. Most events were managed by observation and continuation of cobimetinib without dose modification and resolved or were resolving by the data cutoff date (19 Sept 2014). Conclusions Cobimetinib treatment was associated with serous retinopathy in patients with BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Retinopathy was generally asymptomatic or mild. Periodic ophthalmologic evaluations at regular intervals and at the manifestation of any visual disturbance are recommended to facilitate early detection and resolution of serous retinopathy while patients are taking cobimetinib. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01689519). First received: September 18, 2012

The combination of MEK inhibitor (cobimetinib, trametinib) and BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib, dabrafenib) is now the first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma. This association reduces cutaneous adverse events induced by BRAF inhibitors alone, including photosensitivity, hand-foot syndrome, hyperkeratosis, alopecia, skin papillomas, keratoacanthomas, and squamous-cell carcinomas. While panniculitis has exceptionally been reported with BRAF inhibitors, this rare side effect has never been described with the use of MEK inhibitors. We present here the first observation of panniculitis strictly induced by MEK inhibitors. Indeed, 10 days after the initiation of combined treatment with cobimetinib and vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma, our patient developed panniculitis predominantly on the upper and lower extremities. These cutaneous nodules disappeared during cobimetinib intermissions and recurred while the molecule was resumed. Recurrence of cutaneous nodules was observed after initiation of trametinib combined with dabrafenib, and resolved once again with trametinib discontinuation. We believe that clinicians should be aware of this cutaneous adverse event in patients treated with combined therapy, which can lead to unfounded BRAF inhibitor treatment discontinuation and compromise the antitumor response. Our case suggests a class effect linked with the MEK inhibition pharmacodynamic activity. Finally, laboratory investigation and histopathological examination are mandatory to exclude other panniculitis etiologies and subcutaneous metastasis of melanoma.

Abstract Background Metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer with a high mortality rate and the fastest growing global incidence rate of all malignancies. The introduction of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations has yielded significant increases in PFS and OS for melanoma. However, at present, no direct comparisons between different BRAF/MEK combinations have been conducted. In light of this, an indirect treatment comparison was performed between two BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapies for metastatic melanoma, dabrafenib plus trametinib and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, in order to understand the relative efficacy and toxicity profiles of these therapies. Methods A systematic literature search identified two randomized trials as suitable for indirect comparison: the coBRIM trial of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib versus vemurafenib and the COMBI-v trial of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib. The comparison followed the method of Bucher et al. and analyzed both efficacy (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall response rate [ORR]) and safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs]). Results The indirect comparison revealed similar efficacy outcomes between both therapies, with no statistically significant difference between therapies for OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 − 1.30), PFS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 − 1.40), or ORR (risk ratio [RR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 − 1.10). Dabrafenib plus trametinib differed significantly from vemurafenib plus cobimetinib with regard to the incidence of treatment-related AE (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 − 0.97), any AE grade ≥3 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 − 0.85) or dose interruption/modification (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 − 0.99). Several categories of AEs occurred significantly more frequently with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, while some occurred significantly more frequently with dabrafenib plus trametinib. For severe AEs (grade 3 or above), four occurred significantly more frequently with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and no severe AE occurred significantly more frequently with dabrafenib plus trametinib. Conclusions This indirect treatment comparison suggested that dabrafenib plus trametinib had comparable efficacy to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib but was associated with reduced adverse events.

Opinion Statement: The optimal management of advanced stage BRAF-mutated melanoma is widely debated and complicated by the availability of several different regimens that significantly improve outcomes but have not been directly compared. While there are many unanswered questions relevant to this patient population, the major uncertainty in current practice is the choice between BRAF/MEK inhibitors or immunotherapy for those with previously untreated metastatic or high-risk disease. Decisions regarding first line therapy should include consideration of patient preference as well as the presence of symptomatic metastatic disease and degree of comorbidity, particularly secondary to any history of severe auto-immune disorder.BRAF/MEK inhibitors have a high response rate and rapid onset and thus can be quickly introduced when patients are symptomatic. They have also produced long-term responses in a subset of patients with more favorable prognostic indicators. In addition, impressive survival benefits have also been observed in patients with resected stage 3 disease at high risk of recurrence. On the other hand, anti-PD-1 monotherapy is associated with high rates of clinical benefit (~45% response rate in the metastatic setting) and low rates of severe toxicity. In many patients with adverse prognostic features, we use combined anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 for metastatic disease. While associated with high rates of toxicity, adverse events are largely manageable with corticosteroids and treatment cessation, in which case patients may continue to benefit even after a limited duration of treatment.Multiple treatment options exist for patients with BRAF V600 mutant melanoma. Herein, we review the clinical data for safety and efficacy of these options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Targeted therapy (TT) and immuno-oncology (IO) drugs are approved for patients with BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma (MM). We compared real-world outcomes for first-line (1L) TT versus 1L IO to evaluate optimal sequencing. Materials & methods: Physicians-identified BRAF mutant MM patients initiating 1L TT or IO therapies and extracted treatment, disease and clinical outcomes including disease response which were compared between TT and IO and individual regimens. Results: 440 MM patients (TT = 283, IO = 157) were identified. A higher proportion of TT patients had liver metastases (46.3 vs 35.0%) and abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (61.1 vs 42.7%). IO-treated had a RECIST-determined response rate of 45.9 versus 60.1% for TT and time on treatment of 7.2 versus 11.4 months, respectively. There was no survival difference between cohorts. Conclusion: Despite higher risk patients, 1L TT resulted in higher response rate and longer treatment duration suggesting a preferred 1L sequence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Ophthalmologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the impact of concomitant acid-reducing agents (ARAs) and vemurafenib dose on the efficacy of vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600 mutation–positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib. Data were pooled for patients treated with vemurafenib or cobimetinib plus vemurafenib in the BRIM-2, BRIM-3, BRIM-7, and coBRIM studies. The primary end-points were progression-free survival and overall survival across patient subgroups defined by vemurafenib dose (full vs reduced) and concomitant ARA use (yes vs no). Objective response rate (ORR) was also analysed. Steady-state vemurafenib concentrations were evaluated according to vemurafenib dosing and concomitant ARA use across treatment cohorts in a subset of patients from BRIM-7 and coBRIM with available concentration data. Efficacy analyses included 920 patients: 641 in the vemurafenib cohort and 279 in the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib cohort. Overall, no significant differences in survival outcomes were observed across subgroups according to vemurafenib dose and ARA use, with or without adjustment for known prognostic covariates, in both treatment cohorts. ORR was also similar across subgroups in both treatment cohorts. Steady-state vemurafenib concentrations were analysed in 389 patients (193 in the vemurafenib cohort and 196 in the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib cohort) and were generally similar across vemurafenib dose subgroups, regardless of ARA use in both treatment cohorts. Results of this retrospective pooled analysis suggest that ARAs can be used concomitantly with vemurafenib, alone or in combination with cobimetinib, without compromising the efficacy of vemurafenib. • Concomitant acid-reducing agents did not affect vemurafenib ± cobimetinib efficacy. • Vemurafenib dose reduction did not affect vemurafenib ± cobimetinib efficacy. • Acid-reducing agents did not affect steady-state vemurafenib concentrations. • Acid-reducing agents can be used concomitantly with vemurafenib ± cobimetinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Preclinical evidence suggests that MEK inhibition promotes accumulation and survival of intratumoral tumor-specific T cells and can synergize with immune checkpoint inhibition. We investigated the safety and clinical activity of combining a MEK inhibitor, cobimetinib, and a programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, atezolizumab, in patients with solid tumors. Patients and methods This phase I/Ib study treated PD-L1/PD-1-naive patients with solid tumors in a dose-escalation stage and then in multiple, indication-specific dose-expansion cohorts. In most patients, cobimetinib was dosed once daily orally for 21 days on, 7 days off. Atezolizumab was dosed at 800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary objectives were safety and tolerability. Secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results Between 27 December 2013 and 9 May 2016, 152 patients were enrolled. As of 4 September 2017, 150 patients received ≥1 dose of atezolizumab, including 14 in the dose-escalation cohorts and 136 in the dose-expansion cohorts. Patients had metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; n  = 84), melanoma (n  = 22), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n  = 28), and other solid tumors (n  = 16). The most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (67%), rash (48%), and fatigue (40%), similar to those with single-agent cobimetinib and atezolizumab. One (<1%) treatment-related grade 5 AE occurred (sepsis). Forty-five (30%) and 23 patients (15%) had AEs that led to discontinuation of cobimetinib and atezolizumab, respectively. Confirmed responses were observed in 7 of 84 patients (8%) with mCRC (6 responders were microsatellite low/stable, 1 was microsatellite instable), 9 of 22 patients (41%) with melanoma, and 5 of 28 patients (18%) with NSCLC. Clinical activity was independent of KRAS/BRAF status across diseases. Conclusions Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib had manageable safety and clinical activity irrespective of KRAS/BRAF status. Although potential synergistic activity was seen in mCRC, this was not confirmed in a subsequent phase III study. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01988896 (the investigators in the NCT01988896 study are listed in the supplementary Appendix , available at Annals of Oncology online). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of early adverse events on overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS) and objective response within a pooled secondary analysis of participants treated with first‐line vemurafenib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in the clinical trials BRIM3 and coBRIM. The study included 583 participants who received vemurafenib monotherapy and 247 who received vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Adverse events requiring vemurafenib/cobimetinib dose adjustment within the first 28 days of therapy were significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio (HR) [95% CI]: dose reduced/interrupted = 0.79 [0.65–0.96]; drug withdrawn = 1.18 [0.71–1.96]; p = 0.032), PFS (HR [95% CI]: dose reduced/interrupted = 0.82 [0.67–0.99]; drug withdrawn = 1.58 [0.97–2.58]; p = 0.017) and objective response (odds ratio (OR) [95% CI]: dose reduced/interrupted = 1.35 [0.99–1.85]; drug withdrawn = 0.17 [0.06–0.43]; p = <0.001). Arthralgia occurring within the first 28 days of vemurafenib or vemurafenib plus cobimetinib therapy was also significantly associated with favourable OS (p = 0.026), PFS (p = 0.042) and objective response (p = 0.047). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approximately 50% of cutaneous melanomas harbor activating mutations of the BRAF-oncogene, making BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) the standard treatment for this disease. However, disease responses are limited in duration mainly due to acquired resistance. Dual MAPK pathway inhibition with addition of a MEK inhibitor (MEKi) to a BRAFi improved the efficacy and tolerability compared with BRAFi alone. Cobimetinib (Cotellic®) is an orally bioavailable, potent and selective MEKi, which significantly improved response rates when combined with BRAFi vemurafenib (median overall survival: 22.3 months). The toxicity profile of cobimetinib is manageable and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events is uncommon. Present efforts are addressed to overcome resistance and improve long-term outcomes: based on the evidence of the immunomodulatory properties of BRAFi and MEKi, current clinical trials of combined targeted and immunotherapy are investigating the role of cobimetinib in the context of combination or as sequential treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Precision medicine is based on molecular and genotypic patient characterization to define specific target treatment. BRAF mutation is an oncogenic driver, and the Cancer Genome Atlas has identified BRAF mutations in different cancer types. Tumor type agnostic therapy is based on targeting genomic alterations, regardless of tumor origin. In this context, novel therapeutic agents including BRAF and MEK inhibitors based on the molecular landscape in solid tumors have been investigated. Case presentation, Case 1: The first case is chemotherapy-refractory, BRAF V600E mutated intrahepaticcholangiocarcinoma treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib as third line therapy. In this setting the dual BRAF and MEK inhibition resulted in improved progression-free survival and quality of life; Case 2: The second case shows aBRAF G466A mutated Bellini duct carcinoma (BDC), treated with dabrafenib and trametinib in second line therapy. The disease remained under control for 11 months after the first relapse. Discussion: In the literature there is strong evidence that melanoma, colorectal cancer, non small cell lung cancer and anaplastic thyroid cancer with BRAF mutations are good targets for BRAF/MEK pathway inhibitors. The VE-BASKET and ROAR basket trials explored the efficacy of vemurafenib and the combination of dabrafenib/trametinib, respectively, in BRAF V600 mutation-positive cancers other than melanoma, papillary thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer and non small cell lung cancer. Within the concept of tumor type agnostic therapy, we decided to treat our BRAF-mutated tumors with the association of BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Conclusions: Our results confirm the emerging importance of molecular tumor profiling for the successful management of cancer, and the potential of BRAF-targeted therapy in the treatment of rare solid tumors with poor prognosis and no clinical benefit from systemic therapies with.

Khiem A Tran,1,* Michelle Y Cheng,1,* Anupam Mitra,1 Hiromi Ogawa,1 Vivian Y Shi,1 Laura P Olney,1 April M Kloxin,2 Emanual Maverakis1 1Department of Dermatology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA; 2Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA *These authors contributed equally to this work Abstract: The treatment of melanoma has improved markedly over the last several years with the advent of more targeted therapies. Unfortunately, complex compensation mechanisms, such as those of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, have limited the clinical benefit of these treatments. Recently, a better understanding of melanoma resistance mechanisms has given way to intelligently designed multidrug regimes. Herein, we review the extensive pathways of BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) resistance. We also review the advantages of dual therapy, including the addition of an MEK inhibitor (cobimetinib or trametinib), which has proven to increase progression-free survival when compared to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. Finally, this review touches on future treatment strategies that are being developed for advanced melanoma, including the possibility of triple therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the work on optimizing sequential therapy. Keywords: cobimetinib, trametinib, vemurafenib, dabrafenib, BRAF inhibitor, MAPK pathway

The incidence of metastatic melanoma has been increasing dramatically over the last decades. Yet, there have been many new innovative therapies, such as targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors, which have made progress in survival for these patients. The oncology pharmacist is part of the healthcare team and can help in optimizing these newer therapies. There will be discussion about combination therapies, the oncology pharmacist's role, and issues at the core of his interest, such as drug interactions and complementary and alternative therapies.

Rosai- Dorfman disease (RDD) is a rare systemic pseudo-lymphomatous disorder with unknown etiology. No guidelines exist regarding its management and treatment when the disease is progressing. Choroidal involvement in RDD has rarely been reported and has often been misdiagnosed. We describe a case of a 64-year-old male diagnosed with RDD by means of choroidal biopsy, successfully treated with a MEK inhibitor, namely Cobimetinib, and its follow-up over 5 years, with good final anatomical and functional results. This is the first reported case of RDD diagnosed with an intraocular biopsy performed on a non-enucleated globe, thus preserving the integrity and function of the eye. This case emphasizes the need for a choroidal biopsy when the diagnosis is not straightforward and the starting of targeted therapy to retain a good visual function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 38-year-old man with a diagnosis of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma was referred to our clinic. He had been under treatment with 60-mg oral cobimetinib daily for 21 days/7 day off in combination with 960 mg vemurafenib twice daily. The patient had symptoms of blurred vision and photophobia in his right eye. A slit-lamp examination revealed bilateral central corneal stromal opacity and epithelial microcystic edema Involvement was more severe in the right eye compared with the left eye. Fourteen days after the first visit, the patient's symptoms and slit-lamp findings were largely resolved. We suggest that endothelium pump failure was involved in this acute corneal decompensation case similar to the mechanism in retinal pigment epithelium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The prognostic significance of programmed death ligand‐1 (PD‐L1) on treatment outcomes in patients receiving BRAF with or without MEK inhibitors is not well understood. This retrospective exploratory analysis evaluated the association of tumour PD‐L1 expression with progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among 210 patients in the coBRIM trial treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib or placebo plus vemurafenib. In the vemurafenib cohort, there was a trend of increased PFS and OS in those with PD‐L1+ melanoma, with hazard ratios (HRs; PD‐L1+ vs. PD‐L1−) of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.46–1.07) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.42–1.13) for PFS and OS, respectively. However, in patients treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib, a similar trend was not observed with HRs (PD‐L1+ versus PD‐L1−) of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.66–1.68) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.57–1.57) for PFS and OS, respectively. The combination cobimetinib plus vemurafenib appears to overcome the poor prognosis associated with low PD‐L1 expression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Mutations in the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK pathway are detected in 50% of colorectal cancer cases and play a crucial role in cancer development and progression. Cobimetinib is a MEK inhibitor approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma and inhibits the cell viability of other types of cancer cells. Methods: HCT116 colorectal cancer cells were treated with cobimetinib, and MTT assay, colony formation assay, and flow cytometry were used to evaluate cell viability, cell cycle, and apoptosis, respectively. The expression of genes associated with the cell cycle and apoptosis were evaluated by quantitative real-time PCR and western blotting. To explore use of cobimetinib in colorectal cancer treatment and further understand its mechanisms, RNA-seq technology was used to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between cobimetinib-treated and untreated HCT116 cells. Furthermore, we compared these DEGs with Gene Expression Omnibus data from colorectal cancer tissues and normal colonic epithelial tissues. Results: We found that cobimetinib not only inhibited cell proliferation but also induced G1 phase arrest and apoptosis in HCT116 colorectal cancer cells, suggesting that cobimetinib may useful in colorectal cancer therapy. After cobimetinib treatment, 3,495 DEGs were obtained, including 2,089 upregulated genes and 1,406 downregulated genes, and most of these DEGs were enriched in the cell cycle, DNA replication, and DNA damage repair pathways. Our results revealed that some genes with high expression in colorectal cancer tissues were downregulated by cobimetinib in HCT116 cells, including CCND1, E2F1, CDC25C, CCNE2, MYC, and PCNA. These genes have vital roles in DNA replication and the cell cycle. Furthermore, genes with low expression in colorectal cancer tissues were upregulated by cobimetinib, including PRKCA, PI3K, RTK, and PKC. Based on our results, the PKC and PI3K pathways were activated after cobimetinib treatment, and inhibition of these two pathways can increase the cytotoxicity of cobimetinib in HCT116 cells. Notably, cobimetinib appeared to enhance the efficacy of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) by decreasing TYMS expression, high expression of which is responsible for 5-FU resistance in colorectal cancer. Conclusions: Our results suggest the potential use of cobimetinib in colorectal cancer therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of JBES: Brazilian Journal of Health Economics / Jornal Brasileiro de Economia da Saúde is the property of JBES: Brazilian Journal of Health Economics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses a study which investigated the efficacy of the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib used alone in wild-type BRAF Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) patients refractory to conventional therapy. It cites the clinical and radiological characteristics of three patients with ECD. Images are also presented showing the results of cobimetinib therapy in such patients.

BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAFi/MEKi), the standard treatment for patients with BRAFV600 mutated melanoma, are currently explored in combination with various immunotherapies, notably checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive transfer of receptor-transfected T cells. Since two BRAFi/MEKi combinations with similar efficacy are approved, potential differences in their effects on immune cells would enable a rational choice for triple therapies. Therefore, we characterized the influence of the clinically approved BRAFi/MEKi combinations dabrafenib (Dabra) and trametinib (Tram) vs. vemurafenib (Vem) and cobimetinib (Cobi) on the activation and functionality of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-transfected T cells. We co-cultured CAR-transfected CD8+ T cells and target cells with clinically relevant concentrations of the inhibitors and determined the antigen-induced cytokine secretion. All BRAFi/MEKi reduced this release as single agents, with Dabra having the mildest inhibitory effect, and Dabra + Tram having a clearly milder inhibitory effect than Vem + Cobi. A similar picture was observed for the upregulation of the activation markers CD25 and CD69 on CAR-transfected T cells after antigen-specific stimulation. Most importantly, the cytolytic capacity of the CAR-T cells was significantly inhibited by Cobi and Vem + Cobi, whereas the other kinase inhibitors showed no effect. Therefore, the combination Dabra + Tram would be more suitable for combining with T-cell-based immunotherapy than Vem + Cobi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BRAF mutations are present in a variety of cancers and cause constitutive activation of the Ras-Raf-MEK-ERK signaling pathway. In cutaneous malignant melanoma, combined treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors is associated with high response rates and has been shown to improve progression free as well as overall survival compared to BRAF inhibition alone. In multiple myeloma, BRAF mutations are detectable only in a minority of patients. Only few data are available regarding the clinical activity of BRAF inhibitors in BRAF-positive multiple myeloma patients, including some anecdotal reports on remarkable responses in individuals being resistant to all other available anti-myeloma treatment approaches. We here present the first report on the combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib in a young patient with highly resistant and rapidly progressing multiple myeloma harboring the BRAF V600E mutation who achieved a rapid and sustained response to this combination therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are a significant public health concern due to their widespread transmission, morbidity, and oncogenic potential. Despite efficacious vaccines, millions of unvaccinated individuals and those with existing infections will develop HPV-related diseases for the next two decades and beyond. The continuing burden of HPV-related diseases is exacerbated by the lack of effective therapies or cures for infections, highlighting the need to identify and develop antivirals. The experimental murine papillomavirus type 1 (MmuPV1) model provides opportunities to study papillomavirus pathogenesis in cutaneous epithelium, the oral cavity, and the anogenital tract. However, to date the MmuPV1 infection model has not been used to demonstrate the effectiveness of potential antivirals. We previously reported that inhibitors of cellular MEK/ERK signaling suppress oncogenic HPV early gene expression in three-dimensional tissue cultures. Herein, we adapted the MmuPV1 infection model to determine whether MEK inhibitors have anti-papillomavirus properties in vivo. We demonstrate that oral delivery of a MEK1/2 inhibitor promotes papilloma regression in immunodeficient mice that otherwise would have developed persistent infections. Quantitative histological analyses reveal that inhibition of MEK/ERK signaling reduces E6/E7 mRNA, MmuPV1 DNA, and L1 protein expression within MmuPV1-induced lesions. These data suggest that MEK1/2 signaling is essential for both early and late MmuPV1 replication events supporting our previous findings with oncogenic HPVs. We also provide evidence that MEK inhibitors protect mice from developing secondary tumors. Thus, our data suggest that MEK inhibitors have potent antiviral and anti-tumor properties in a preclinical mouse model and merit further investigation as papillomavirus antiviral therapies. • HPV E6 & E7 proteins drive tumor growth; they are deemed ideal therapeutic targets. • Prior work showed MEK signaling regulates HPV E6 & E7 transcription in tissues. • In a mouse model of HPV-induced tumor growth, MEK inhibition has antiviral effects. • The antiviral activities of a MEK1/2 inhibitor promote tumor regression. • MEK1/2 signaling is a promising therapeutic target for HPV diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]