Cautious Addition of Targeted Therapy to PD-1 Inhibitors after Initial Progression of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma on Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-386981/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Cautious Addition of Targeted Therapy to PD-1 Inhibitors after Initial Progression of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma on Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-386981/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Virtually all metastatic melanoma patients who progress after initial treatment with PD-1 or CTLA-4 directed antibodies will die of their disease. Salvage options are urgently needed. It is theoretically attractive to combine immunotherapy with targeted agents in progressing patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma, but the toxicity of combined treatment has proven challenging. We have observed striking responses with the cautious addition of low doses of targeted therapy to PD-1 antibody treatment at the time of disease progression following initial immunotherapy. This allowed conversion of a significant number of rapidly progressing patients to durable complete responses in BRAF mutant melanoma.

Results: We therefore performed a retrospective analysis of our large patient database and identified 23 patients who progressed on initial checkpoint inhibitor treatment, who subsequently had cautious addition of BRAF±MEK inhibitor therapy to PD-1 antibody treatment. We found an objective response rate of 55% in second line therapy, with a median progression-free survival of 33.4 months and median overall survival of 34.1 months, with 40% of patients in remission over 3 years. Ten of 12 responding patients were able to discontinue all therapy and continue in unmaintained remission. Toxicity of this approach was generally manageable (only 21.7 % grade 3-5 toxicity). There was 1 early sudden death for unknown reasons in a responding patient. Conclusions: Our results suggest that 2^nd line therapy with PD-1 inhibitors plus BRAF±MEK inhibitors has substantial activity and manageable toxicity. This treatment can induce additional durable complete responses after failure of initial immunotherapy of metastatic melanoma. These remarkable results suggest further evaluation be performed of sequential checkpoint inhibitor therapy with cautious addition of targeted therapy in appropriate patients.

Cancer Biology

Oncology

Checkpoint inhibitor

ipilimumab

nivolumab

pembrolizumab

BRAF inhibitor

MEK inhibitor

Immunotherapy

Melanoma represents a significant public health issue in the United States. The incidence of melanoma has been increasing over many decades [1]. In 2020, it is estimated that there were 100,350 patients diagnosed with invasive melanoma, resulting in 6850 deaths [1]. During the last 2 decades, dramatic changes in treatment of metastatic melanoma and improvements in patient survival have taken place. These have originated from two conceptual advances: 1) There has been recognition that there is a pattern of recurrent somatic genetic mutations in cancers that drive melanoma growth and metastases [2]. This has led to development of “targeted” therapy (TT) agents that selectively block the effect of activating oncogene mutations on melanoma cell proliferation and survival [3]. 2) It has been recognized that cancers are not immunologically silent and that cancer progression requires that cancers evade the immune system detection and destruction [4]. This has led to the discovery of immune checkpoints that activate or inhibit T cell responses to cancer. The net impact of these discoveries has been that in 2005, the median survival of a patient with metastatic melanoma treated with chemotherapy was only 6–7 months, with only 25% alive at 1 year [5]. In 2019, the median survival of metastatic melanoma had increased to over 50% alive at 5 years, a statistic that hopefully will continue to improve with further treatment advances [6, 7].

Targeted therapy in melanoma has generally been directed at the most common activating oncogene mutation. This mutation occurs in the tyrosine kinase BRAF and is most commonly a single nucleotide substitution at V600E [3]. BRAF V600E mutations appear to be present in approximately 40–50% of skin melanomas [8]. There are a number of additional, less common mutations that also produce constitutive activation of BRAF [8]. It has become apparent that simultaneous blockade of the mutated BRAF and additional members of the downstream signaling pathway (vertical blockade) such as the oncogene MEK, using combinations of BRAF + MEK inhibitors increases the effectiveness of TT while maintaining tolerable levels of side effects [9].

BRAF ± MEK inhibition has been shown to induce very rapid responses in the majority of metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma (with clinical improvement apparent even in 3–4 days)[10]. In a small subset of patients, melanomas seem to be highly dependent (or “addicted”) to the mutant oncogene [11], resulting in long term-responses spanning years. However, the majority of melanoma tumors develop adaptive resistance to targeted agents over a median span of 12–18 months [12]. With 5-year follow-up, only 19% of patients treated with dabrafenib (BRAF V600E inhibitor) plus trametinib (a MEK inhibitor) continue to have ongoing responses of their melanoma despite continual therapy [7].

Recognition that cancers must evade the immune system to progress has led to additional cancer treatment advances. Responses to specific tumor antigens requires not only the antigen recognition site on T cells (the T cell receptor), but also simultaneous engagement of co-stimulatory and co-inhibitory receptors. These additional receptors modulate immune responsiveness (termed immune checkpoints) [13, 14]. Normally, the inhibitory pathways are employed in the body to down-regulate excessive activation of immune responses to prevent organ damage via autoimmunity [15]. Cancer cells appear to hijack the inhibitory pathways to prevent recognition and destruction by the immune system [16]. Thus, checkpoint inhibitor (CKI) antibodies blocking the function of co-inhibitory T cell receptors (e.g., CTLA-4 and PD-1) have proven powerful in reviving “exhausted” immune responses in patients with melanoma and other cancers. These agents re-activate anti-melanoma immunity against cancers [17]. In metastatic melanoma, combined PD-1 + CTLA-4 inhibition has produced 5-year progression free survival rates of 37% with 5-year overall survival exceeding 50%. Monotherapy with PD-1 antibodies or CTLA-4 antibodies individually have achieved somewhat lower rates of durable complete remissions in melanoma patients [6, 18].

It seemed reasonable, therefore, to investigate whether a combination of TT and CKI is feasible [19]. This would theoretically take advantage of the rapid onset and depth of response achievable with targeted agents with the durability of response and long-term survival benefit seen with immunotherapy. There is developing clinical evidence that BRAF ± MEK inhibitor therapy also results in significant immunologic potentiation [20]. In addition, targeted agents may increase immune infiltration into tumors and enhance T cell cytotoxicity [21], in part via increased PD-1 ligand expression on melanoma cells [22]. In addition TT may increase melanoma specific antigen expression, enhance dendritic cell function, increase NK and T cell function, and overcome inhibitor influences in the tumor microenvironment [19]. Unfortunately, combinations of CKI and TT have proven challenging, due to an apparent significant increase in toxicity related to the combination of TT with concurrent CKI, even when these agents are given sequentially without an adequate washout period [23, 24]. Thus, clinical trials of TT in combination with CKI are still in their infancy.

We have treated a sizeable cohort of patients with CKI antibodies. In patients progressing following CKI treatment, the vast majority of whom would eventually die from metastatic melanoma, we have cautiously added low doses of targeted agents when a druggable mutation was present (e.g., BRAF with or without MEK inhibitors) with the hypothesis that these agents would slow cancer growth to provide time for productive immune responses to develop and perhaps to take advantage of potential immune potentiation induced by BRAF ± MEK inhibitors [25–28].

We have observed striking responses including conversion of rapidly progressing patients to durable complete responses with acceptable levels of toxicity in BRAF mutant melanoma with the addition of low doses of TT in patients whose metastatic tumors progressed after treatment with CKI antibodies. In this retrospective analysis, we have analyzed and quantified the clinical activity and side-effects of CKI + TT in metastatic BRAF mutant melanoma patients who progressed on their initial immunotherapy.

Mutation status was evaluated by next-gen sequencing (Genoptics, Carlsbad CA or Foundation Medicine, Cambridge MA). A secure HIPAA compliant iKnowMed data base (McKesson, Houston, TX) was searched for BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma patients who had received treatment with BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, encorafenib) with or without MEK inhibitors (cobimetinib, trametinib or binimetinib). Charts from these patients were reviewed to identify patients who had initially been treated with checkpoint inhibitor antibodies (pembrolizumab, nivolumab or ipilimumab). Patients who progressed on initial checkpoint inhibitor (CKI) therapy by clinical exam or radiographs were screened. Those who were subsequently given a targeted therapy (TT) regimen of low dose BRAF +/- MEK inhibitors in combination with ongoing single agent anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies were identified and data extracted into a de-identified patient data spreadsheet for analysis (Excel, Microsoft, Redmond WA).

Patient response to initial CKI therapy, was measured from the start of treatment until the start of TT (termed R1) and respective medication doses were recorded. The duration of subsequent combined treatment with CKI + BRAF +/- MEK inhibitors (R2), measured from the start of targeted therapy until the date of progression or the last clinic visit (if in remission) was also recorded, as was any possible toxicity. Objective response rate was determined using RECIST 1.1 criteria⁷ and overall survival of patients was calculated from the start of CKI treatment. Complete Response (CR) was defined as disappearance of all target and non-target lesions and normalization of tumor marker levels. Partial response (PR) was defined as more than a 30% reduction in sum of bidimensional tumor measurements. Progressive disease was described as > 20% increase in sum of bidimensional tumor measurements or the development of new metastases. Stable disease (SD) was defined as any response not meeting criteria for CR, PR or PD. Data collection concluded December 31, 2020.

Treatment Regimens

In our practice, patients with BRAF-mutant melanomas were virtually always treated initially with a CKI regimen, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or the combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab due to frequent delays in obtaining BRAF sequencing data. If the patients progressed on CKI therapy, patients with a BRAF mutation were offered cautious addition of a low dose BRAF +/- MEK inhibitor with continuation of PD-1 antibody therapy. TT typically consisted of dabrafenib 75 mg/day with or without trametinib 1mg/day or encorafenib 75 mg/d with or without binimetinib 15 mg b.i.d. If there was no apparent toxicity after a week of concurrent therapy, cautious dose escalation of BRAF or MEK inhibitors was considered. Patients who were given TT before CKI or who were given CKI and TT simultaneously as initial therapy were excluded from the analysis. The final cohort included 23 patients who met the described study parameters. Patients were closely monitored for signs of toxicity, and treatment was interrupted if toxicity persisted or could not be controlled with dose-reduction or adjunctive treatment.

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were calculated via Excel spreadsheet. Survival was calculated from the start of CKI therapy until the last visit if the patient was still alive or the date of death if the patient was deceased. Best response was determined based on if the patient had a complete response, partial response, stable disease, or progressed a second time after the combined therapy. The data analysis cutoff date was 12/31/20. A Kaplan Meier analysis was performed to evaluate progression-free and overall survival [29].

Patient Characteristics

The screened population consisted of 53 BRAF-mutant melanoma patients who were treated with initial CKI treatment. It should be noted that approximately 65% of our BRAF-mutant patients progress after initial immunotherapy. The eligible study population consisted of 23 patients. Patient demographics and disease characteristics are presented (Table 1). In this cohort of patients, 18 (78.3 %) had a V600E mutation, 3 (13.0%) had a V600K mutation, and 2 patients (8.7%) had other BRAF mutations (a BRAF T599_V600 ins T, and a c1794-1796 duplication). In addition, two (8.7%) patients had concomitant loss of both CDKN2A/B and 1 (4.3%) had a CDK/N2A exon 2 deletion. Six patients (26.1%) had a concomitant TERT promoter mutation.

The median age at diagnosis of metastatic melanoma was 50 ± 14 years (± SD), and the age range was 20–82 years. Thirteen (52.2%) of evaluable patients were male and 12 (47.8%) were female. All 23 patients were Caucasian. Twenty patients have ended treatment, two continue on targeted therapy treatment alone in ongoing remission, and one had progressive disease on CKI + TT treatment and is now enrolled in a clinical trial.

The extent of melanoma at the start of TT + CKI therapy is shown in relation to eventual response (Table 2). It is interesting that bulky tumor sites or a miliary pattern of metastases (dozens to hundreds of small metastases at multiple sites) did not prevent the induction of durable complete responses. There appeared to be more patients who developed brain metastases at the time of CKI progression in the group that died (6/10 patients), compared to the responding group (2/13). There also appeared to be modestly more patients with an elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) at progression (5/10) who died compared to the responding group (3/13).

CKI Treatment Characteristics

Initial checkpoint inhibitor therapy consisted of ipilimumab plus nivolumab in 12 patients, pembrolizumab monotherapy in 5 patients, nivolumab monotherapy in 5 patients and ipilimumab therapy (prior to approval of PD-1 antibodies) in 1 patient who subsequently received treatment with PD-1 MAb with added TT. These choices were determined by the timing of regulatory approval of these agents.

TT Treatment Characteristics

Initial targeted therapy consisted of dabrafenib/trametinib in 11 patients, dabrafenib monotherapy in 7 patients, encorafenib/binimetinib in 4 patients, and encorafenib monotherapy 1 patient. A total of 6 patients required a switch to alternate BRAF/MEK inhibitors due to drug specific toxicity. None of these patients needed to completely discontinue BRAF ± MEK directed treatment due to persistent toxicity. Patients treated with dabrafenib monotherapy were treated prior to regulatory approval of the dabrafenib/trametinib regimen.

Response and Survival Analysis

Following treatment with combined TT and CKI therapy, a complete response was observed in 13 (56.5%) patients. One patient was found to have a partial response (4.3%), 1 patient had stable disease (4.3%), and 1 patient had an unknown response (4.3%) to combined therapy due to sudden death shortly after the start of the combined regimen. Progressive disease was observed in 8 (34.8%) of patients. Of the 14 complete response patients, 13 (92.9%) are currently alive.

With over 30 months median follow up, median progression free survival (PFS) from the start CKI treatment and subsequent addition of TT was 33.4 months (R2). The confidence interval for the PFS rate ranged from 35–80% at 30 months (Fig. 1). A total of 40% of patients were still progression free beyond 3 years of follow-up.

The median overall survival for all BRAF-positive melanoma patients for patients who received combined 2nd line TT and CKI therapy was 34.1 months from the onset of CKI treatment (Fig. 2). The 95% confidence interval for response probability at 30 months was 35–75%. Patients with a V600E or a V600K BRAF mutation had more frequent durable responses to combined therapy than patients with a BRAF insertion or duplication, who had a very poor survival.

Of the responding patients, median progression free survival of responding patients has not been reached. A total of 11/12 patients continue in an ongoing response and continue to survive (91.7%)(Fig. 3). With over 3 years median follow-up, 76.9% of responding patients remain alive.

Progression

Response 1 (R1) was defined from the start of CKI therapy to the start of combined CKI therapy and TT and was calculated for all patients. The median time to P1 was 3.6 months ± 4.4 months SD, with a range of 4.6–15.9 months (Fig. 4). Some investigators have termed patients with clinical or radiographic doubling of disease by 2–3 months “hyperprogressors”[30]. These patients are known to have a very poor prognosis. Of the 23 patients in this study 10/23 (43.5%) would fit this definition, including 5 of 14 complete responders. An example (patient 8) is shown (Fig. 5).

Response 2 (R2) was calculated from the start of TT administration until disease progression or the most recent clinic visit if the patient was still alive. The median R2 was 17.1 months ± 17.0 months SD (range 0.4–62.6 months). This was longer than the initial CKI response (R1) in every single patient. It should be noted that 10 of 12 responding patients have completely discontinued anticancer therapy using criteria published by Robert et al. [31], and 10/12 (83.3%) remain in ongoing complete response (Fig. 4). Two patients (16.6%) remain on treatment after complete response for 12 months, one patient was in CR for 33 months, but unfortunately died 3 months after discontinuing all therapy of a catastrophic brain relapse with CNS hemorrhage (8.3%). Active follow-up of responding patients after combined TT and CKI therapy is still continuing. In non-responding patients a major cause of mortality was the development of brain metastases in 7 out of 10 patients. The other 3 patients died of systemic metastatic disease progression.

Toxicity

Toxicity was closely monitored in all patients. If toxicity appeared immune-mediated, immunotherapy was held, and steroid treatment was started. Secondary immunosuppressive agents were used as indicated. Endocrine function was closely monitored, and thyroid or steroid replacements were started when indicated, without treatment interruption. Toxicity from targeted agents was treated as recommended by the manufacturer. Treatment was discontinued if toxicity persisted or could not be adequately controlled with adjunctive measures or reached grade 3 or 4 severity. Significant adverse effects were noted in 10 (43.5%) of patients while on initial CKI therapy. After being started on combined TT and CKI therapy, adverse effects were noted in 19 (79.17%) of patients (Table 1). Most treatment toxicity was grade 0–2 and able to be controlled with adjunctive measures, allowing treatment to be continued. The spectrum of observed toxicities seen with both initial CKI treatment and subsequent TT plus PD-1 therapy is shown (Table 1). A total of 2 patients (8.7%) had grade 3 seronegative arthritis (treated as an outpatient) and there were 2 grade 4 toxicities that required hospital admission (8.7%). One patient with brain metastases died suddenly of uncertain causes (previous EKGs did not show QT prolongation), while dramatically responding to therapy. Unfortunately, no autopsy was permitted. The total incidence of grade III-V toxicities was 21.7%.

Development of CKI and TT have dramatically changed the treatment options for patients with metastatic melanoma. Regardless of treatment choice, eventual disease progression in the majority of patients remains a clinical challenge. For example, patients whose best response to ipilimumab and nivolumab was progressive or stable disease had a median survival of only 3 and 6 months respectively [Long et al., Characteristics of Long-Term Survivors and Subgroup Analyses with Combination Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for Advanced Melanoma (CheckMate 067), presented at Society for Melanoma Research 2019]. In a retrospective reanalysis of 3 clinical trials, patients treated second line TT after initial CKI failure had a PFS of only 18% when treated with 2nd line BRAF ± MEK inhibitors [32]. Thus, better treatment options for patients with progression of melanoma after initial CKI therapy are still badly needed.

Since targeted agents induce a rapid and deep response with eventual development of adaptive resistance and checkpoint inhibitors produce more gradual onset of activity with a significant fraction of complete and durable responses, combining CKI and TT is highly attractive in BRAF mutant patients. Unfortunately, early attempts at combination therapy led to unacceptably high levels of toxicity [33, 23, 34]

This toxicity appeared, in part, due to the unanticipated immunologic activity of BRAF and MEK inhibitors. BRAF ± MEK inhibitor therapy appears to result in significant immunologic potentiation, by increasing immune infiltration into tumors and enhancing T cell cytotoxicity [20, 21], in part via increased PD-1 ligand expression on melanoma cells [22]. In addition TT may increase melanoma specific antigen expression, enhance dendritic cell function, increase NK and T cell function, and overcome inhibitor influences in the tumor microenvironment [19]. More recently, a number of front-line combination trials of BRAF + MEK inhibitors have reported results, most of which have not met their primary endpoint goals. However, these reports have provided tantalizing hints of potential effectiveness of these regimens [35, 34, 36].

In the Keynote 022 trial, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive dabrafenib (150 mg orally two times per day) and trametinib (2 mg orally one time a day) with intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS. With 36.6 months of follow-up, median PFS was 16.9 months (95% CI 11.3 to 27.9) with triplet and 10.7 months (95% CI 7.2 to 16.8) with doublet (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83)(p = 0.53). With triplet and doublet, respectively, PFS at 24 months was 41.0% and 16.3%; median response duration were 25.1 months and 12.1 months, respectively. Median OS was not reached with triplet and was 26.3 months with doublet (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.06). Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 35 patients (58%, including one death) receiving triplet and 15 patients (25%) receiving doublet [36].

The IMspire150 trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study that enrolled 514 patients. Patients with unresectable stage IIIc–IV, BRAF V600E mutant melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to 28-day cycles of vemurafenib (960 mg b.i.d.), and cobimetinib (60 mg/d for 21 days) with either atezolizumab (840 mg) or placebo. At a median follow-up of 18.9 months, progression-free survival as assessed by the study investigator was significantly prolonged with atezolizumab versus control (15.1 vs 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI 0.63–0.97; p = 0·025). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 99% of both the atezolizumab and control groups, with 13% of patients in the atezolizumab group and 16% in the control group stopping all treatment because of adverse events [35].

In the COMBI-I trial, 532 pts were randomized to receive spartalizumab 400 mg or placebo IV Q4W with dabrafenib 150 mg orally BID and trametinib 2 mg orally QD. At median follow-up 27.2 mo., the spartalizumab-based regimen did not significantly improve PFS (median PFS, 16.2 mo. vs 12.0 mo.; HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.655–1.027]; P = .042). Estimated 12- and 24-mo PFS rates with the spartalizumab regimen versus placebo were 58% vs 50% and 44% vs 36%, respectively. The objective response rate was 69% in the spartalizumab arm (CR rate 20%) vs 64% in the placebo arm (CR rate, 18%); median duration of response was NR vs 20.7 mo., respectively. Tx-related adverse events (TRAEs) grade ≥ 3 occurred in 55% vs 33% of pts treated with spartalizumb arm versus placebo. TRAEs leading to discontinuation of all 3 study drugs occurred in 12% vs 8% of pts in the two arms, respectively [37].

We approached the problem of immunotherapy resistant patients somewhat differently than most current trials. In a community setting, there are frequently significant delays in identifying BRAF mutant patients, as reflex BRAF mutation testing is not routinely being performed by community pathologists. Also, V600E-specific mutation testing by monoclonal antibody staining is known to miss a percentage of patients with other BRAF gene mutations (including V600K, V600R and internal gene rearrangements or gene fusions) as well as other potentially targetable mutations, which are more accurately pinpointed via next-gen sequencing panels [38]. Thus, initiating treatment with CKI avoids lengthy treatment delays while awaiting molecular test results. In addition, there is developing data in BRAF mutant patients that initial CKI therapy followed by BRAF inhibition at relapse may have a higher progression free survival than the reverse sequence [39–41, 32].

We also recognized that a substantial percentage of patients (30–40%) treated with initial immunotherapy would achieve complete and durable remissions without any additional therapy. Inclusion of patients with potential CKI response may have confounded analysis of the randomized trials described above and exposed these patients to unnecessary risks for toxicity. BRAF mutant patients may have a modestly increased response potential to CKI treatment compared to non-BRAF mutated patients [6]. It is also known that the majority of patients with best response of progressive or stable disease progression after initial CKI treatment will rapidly die of their disease, with a median survival of 3–6 months [Long et al, Characteristics of Long-Term Survivors and Subgroup Analyses with Combination Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for Advanced Melanoma (CheckMate 067), Society for Melanoma Research 2019]. Thus, we chose to treat only patients who had clearly progressed on immunotherapy with cautious addition of TT to ongoing PD-1 directed treatment. This avoided overtreatment of patients who would achieve complete response without addition of TT, avoiding unnecessary additive toxicity of combining CKI and TT. We also discarded the chemotherapy concept of “maximum tolerated dose” unlike the trials cited above, as it is not clear that this applies to either CKI or TT therapy [42–44], instead seeking a minimum effective dose of TT with CKI. Our belief was that this might arrest tumor progression while enhancing potentially synergistic immune activation and decrease the risk of additive toxicity.

Our results support the clinical activity of a sequential treatment approach. We were able to successfully combine CKI with cautious escalation of TT. Our approach was able to produce a significant frequency of complete responses in 55% of patients including a significant number of patients with “hyperprogression”. This included patients with either a BRAF V600E and V600K mutation. Progression free survival at a median follow-up at 33 months was 34.1 months. Median overall survival was appeared to show a median survival of 34.1 months with a plateau of 48% after 3 years. Of patients achieving a complete response, 10/13 remain in long term remission. Many of these patients have been able to successfully discontinue all treatment based on criteria published by Robert et al [31], and remain in ongoing remission. One patient died of a late CNS relapse; two others remain in complete remission on ongoing TT. In progressing patients, brain metastases proved to be a significant component of progression in 70%. This is a common challenge in BRAF mutant melanomas [45].

The toxicity of our approach seemed modest compared to data from the trials described above. In our series toxicity mostly reached Grade 1–2 intensity. Most toxicity was managed with temporary treatment interruption and steroid administration, if toxicity was typical for CKI immunologic toxicity, or withholding TT and subsequent dose reduction if toxicity was believed to be TT related (e.g., a typical non-pruritic MEK inhibitor rash). In these patients, treatment was resumed once toxicity reached grade 1 or less. In patients with recurrence of TT toxicity after re-challenge, patients were converted to alternate BRAF or MEK inhibitors (6 patients, one required a trial of 3 separate combinations to achieve acceptable levels of toxicity). A total of 21/23 patients was able to remain on therapy after toxicity resolved. Only 2/23 patients had to discontinue treatment due to toxicity. These two patients required hospitalization for grade 4 biopsy-proven interstitial nephritis. In the first patient, renal impairment responded completely to treatment cessation and high dose steroids. This patient did not receive further combined therapy and continues in long-term complete response. The second patient had both interstitial nephritis, ataxia, and concomitant acute sensory-motor neuropathy. He responded dramatically to high dose steroids with the addition of IV immunoglobulin. Treatment with TT was resumed after recovery, however this patient (with a BRAF insertion) eventually died due to melanoma progression. One patient died suddenly of a sudden cardiopulmonary event.

Unfortunately, a subset (44%) of patients failed to respond to the addition of TT to PD-1 treatment. Further work will be needed to understand the mechanism(s) of resistance and to identify more active treatment options in this subset of patients. A number of these progressing patients were characterized by the presence of elevated LDH or brain metastases at progression (known adverse prognostic markers). Patients with internal BRAF rearrangements or fusions also appeared to have an extremely poor prognosis after treatment with both CKI and CKI + TT. The dichotomous response pattern in our patients is curious: Most responding patients eventually reached a complete response and virtually all initially progressing patients have died. The basis for this observation remains to be elucidated. Our clinical trial suggests that it may be possible to identify the eventual response pattern at early times (e.g., within 2–3 months) after adding TT to CKI. If verified, this potentially would allow non-responding patients to transition to clinical trials of new agents, before disease progression results in deterioration of performance status.

Our current study is intended to be hypothesis generating, with a goal of providing preliminary data to supporting development of confirmatory clinical trials. Potential limitations of this study include that it is a retrospective review of patient outcomes over a number of years involving a relatively small number of patients. Patients were treated with a number of different CKI regimens as well as TT agents based on availability over this time. It is possible that an attempt to further escalate TT agent doses might further increase responses, as may adding additional agents to overcome CKI or TT resistance mechanisms. We are hopeful that our promising results will stimulate further trials of concurrent versus sequential CKI and TT.

TT, targeted therapy; CKI, checkpoint inhibitor; R1, response to checkpoint inhibitors alone; R2 response to PD-1 therapy plus BRAF ± MEK inhibitors. CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; CNS central nervous system; PFS, progression-free survival, OS, overall survival; TRAE, treatment related adverse event, HR, hazard ratio, BID, twice daily; QD, daily

Ethics approval:

This retrospective data analysis was reviewed by the Western IRB and was judged to be exempt from full board review.

Consent to participate: Not applicable

Consent for publication: Not applicable

Availability of data and material:

De-identified data supporting this manuscript is available upon reasonable request to corresponding author.

Code availability: Not applicable

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests:

Neither of the authors reported any relevant conflicts of interest

Funding:

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Authors' contributions:

W.S. and C.A. both contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by C.A. and W.S. The first draft of the manuscript was written by W.S. and C.A. and both authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements:

We would like to express our appreciation to patients and their families and the clinical staff of Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada. Critical review by Suzanne Samlowski, M Arch, is also appreciated.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30. doi:10.3322/caac.21590.
Kunz M, Vera J. (2019) Modelling of Protein Kinase Signaling Pathways in Melanoma and Other Cancers. Cancers (Basel) 11 (4). doi:10.3390/cancers11040465.
Flaherty KT, McArthur G. BRAF, a target in melanoma: implications for solid tumor drug development. Cancer. 2010;116(21):4902–13. doi:10.1002/cncr.25261.
Chen DS, Mellman I. Oncology meets immunology: the cancer-immunity cycle. Immunity. 2013;39(1):1–10. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2013.07.012.
Korn EL, Liu PY, Lee SJ, Chapman JA, Niedzwiecki D, Suman VJ, Moon J, Sondak VK, Atkins MB, Eisenhauer EA, Parulekar W, Markovic SN, Saxman S, Kirkwood JM. (2008) Meta-analysis of phase II cooperative group trials in metastatic stage IV melanoma to determine progression-free and overall survival benchmarks for future phase II trials. J Clin Oncol 26 (4):527–534. doi:26/4/527 [pii].
1200/JCO.2007.12.7837.
Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, Grob JJ, Rutkowski P, Lao CD, Cowey CL, Schadendorf D, Wagstaff J, Dummer R, Ferrucci PF, Smylie M, Hogg D, Hill A, Marquez-Rodas I, Haanen J, Guidoboni M, Maio M, Schoffski P, Carlino MS, Lebbe C, McArthur G, Ascierto PA, Daniels GA, Long GV, Bastholt L, Rizzo JI, Balogh A, Moshyk A, Hodi FS, Wolchok JD. Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(16):1535–46. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910836.
Robert C, Grob JJ, Stroyakovskiy D, Karaszewska B, Hauschild A, Levchenko E, Chiarion Sileni V, Schachter J, Garbe C, Bondarenko I, Gogas H, Mandala M, Haanen J, Lebbe C, Mackiewicz A, Rutkowski P, Nathan PD, Ribas A, Davies MA, Flaherty KT, Burgess P, Tan M, Gasal E, Voi M, Schadendorf D, Long GV. Five-Year Outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Metastatic Melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(7):626–36. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1904059.
Lokhandwala PM, Tseng LH, Rodriguez E, Zheng G, Pallavajjalla A, Gocke CD, Eshleman JR, Lin MT. Clinical mutational profiling and categorization of BRAF mutations in melanomas using next generation sequencing. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):665. doi:10.1186/s12885-019-5864-1.
Consoli F, Bersanelli M, Perego G, Grisanti S, Merelli B, Berruti A, Petrelli F. Network indirect comparison of 3 BRAF + MEK inhibitors for the treatment of advanced BRAF mutated melanoma. Clin Transl Oncol. 2019. doi:10.1007/s12094-019-02207-7.
McArthur GA, Puzanov I, Amaravadi R, Ribas A, Chapman P, Kim KB, Sosman JA, Lee RJ, Nolop K, Flaherty KT, Callahan J, Hicks RJ. Marked, homogeneous, and early [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography responses to vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(14):1628–34. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.39.1938.
Meador CB, Pao W. Old Habits Die Hard: Addiction of BRAF-Mutant Cancer Cells to MAP Kinase Signaling. Cancer Discov. 2015;5(4):348–50. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0221.
Long GV, Flaherty KT, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, Levchenko E, de Braud F, Larkin J, Garbe C, Jouary T, Hauschild A, Chiarion-Sileni V, Lebbe C, Mandala M, Millward M, Arance A, Bondarenko I, Haanen J, Hansson J, Utikal J, Ferraresi V, Mohr P, Probachai V, Schadendorf D, Nathan P, Robert C, Ribas A, Davies MA, Lane SR, Legos JJ, Mookerjee B, Grob JJ. 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(7):1631–9. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx176.
Wei SC, Duffy CR, Allison JP. Fundamental Mechanisms of Immune Checkpoint Blockade Therapy. Cancer Discov. 2018;8(9):1069–86. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0367.
Chen DS, Mellman I. Elements of cancer immunity and the cancer-immune set point. Nature. 2017;541(7637):321–30. doi:10.1038/nature21349.
Zha Y, Blank C, Gajewski TF. Negative regulation of T-cell function by PD-1. Crit Rev Immunol. 2004;24(4):229–37.
Chen S, Crabill GA, Pritchard TS, McMiller TL, Wei P, Pardoll DM, Pan F, Topalian SL. Mechanisms regulating PD-L1 expression on tumor and immune cells. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7(1):305. doi:10.1186/s40425-019-0770-2.
Allison JP. Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Cancer Therapy: The 2015 Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award. JAMA. 2015;314(11):1113–4. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.11929.
Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R, Wolchok JD, Hersey P, Joseph R, Weber JS, Dronca R, Mitchell TC, Patnaik A, Zarour HM, Joshua AM, Zhao Q, Jensen E, Ahsan S, Ibrahim N, Ribas A. Five-year survival outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-001. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(4):582–8. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz011.
Yu C, Liu X, Yang J, Zhang M, Jin H, Ma X, Shi H. Combination of Immunotherapy With Targeted Therapy: Theory and Practice in Metastatic Melanoma. Front Immunol. 2019;10:990. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.00990.
Kuske M, Westphal D, Wehner R, Schmitz M, Beissert S, Praetorius C, Meier F. Immunomodulatory effects of BRAF and MEK inhibitors: Implications for Melanoma therapy. Pharmacol Res. 2018;136:151–9. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2018.08.019.
Atay C, Kwak T, Lavilla-Alonso S, Donthireddy L, Richards A, Moberg V, Pilon-Thomas S, Schell M, Messina JL, Rebecca VW, Xiao M, Tan J, Zhang G, Weber JS, Herlyn M, Sarnaik AA, Gabrilovich DI. BRAF Targeting Sensitizes Resistant Melanoma to Cytotoxic T Cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(9):2783–94. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2725.
Sanlorenzo M, Vujic I, Floris A, Novelli M, Gammaitoni L, Giraudo L, Macagno M, Leuci V, Rotolo R, Donini C, Basirico M, Quaglino P, Fierro MT, Giordano S, Sibilia M, Carnevale-Schianca F, Aglietta M, Sangiolo D. BRAF and MEK Inhibitors Increase PD-1-Positive Melanoma Cells Leading to a Potential Lymphocyte-Independent Synergism with Anti-PD-1 Antibody. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(14):3377–85. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1914.
Naqash AR, File DM, Ziemer CM, Whang YE, Landman P, Googe PB, Collichio FA. Cutaneous adverse reactions in B-RAF positive metastatic melanoma following sequential treatment with B-RAF/MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockade or vice versa. A single-institutional case-series. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7(1):4. doi:10.1186/s40425-018-0475-y.
Kourie HR, Klastersky JA. Side-effects of checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2016;28(4):306–13. doi:10.1097/CCO.0000000000000295.
Frederick DT, Piris A, Cogdill AP, Cooper ZA, Lezcano C, Ferrone CR, Mitra D, Boni A, Newton LP, Liu C, Peng W, Sullivan RJ, Lawrence DP, Hodi FS, Overwijk WW, Lizee G, Murphy GF, Hwu P, Flaherty KT, Fisher DE, Wargo JA. BRAF inhibition is associated with enhanced melanoma antigen expression and a more favorable tumor microenvironment in patients with metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(5):1225–31. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1630.
Dorrie J, Babalija L, Hoyer S, Gerer KF, Schuler G, Heinzerling L, Schaft N. (2018) BRAF and MEK Inhibitors Influence the Function of Reprogrammed T Cells: Consequences for Adoptive T-Cell Therapy. Int J Mol Sci 19 (1). doi:10.3390/ijms19010289.
Ho PC, Kaech SM. BRAF-targeted therapy alters the functions of intratumoral CD4(+) T cells to inhibit melanoma progression. Oncoimmunology. 2014;3:e29126. doi:10.4161/onci.29126.
Tomei S, Bedognetti D, De Giorgi V, Sommariva M, Civini S, Reinboth J, Al Hashmi M, Ascierto ML, Liu Q, Ayotte BD, Worschech A, Uccellini L, Ascierto PA, Stroncek D, Palmieri G, Chouchane L, Wang E, Marincola FM. The immune-related role of BRAF in melanoma. Molecular oncology. 2015;9(1):93–104. doi:10.1016/j.molonc.2014.07.014.
Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.
Abbas W, Rao RR, Popli S. Hyperprogression after immunotherapy. South Asian J Cancer. 2019;8(4):244–6. doi:10.4103/sajc.sajc_389_18.
Robert C, Ribas A, Hamid O, Daud A, Wolchok JD, Joshua AM, Hwu WJ, Weber JS, Gangadhar TC, Joseph RW, Dronca R, Patnaik A, Zarour H, Kefford R, Hersey P, Zhang J, Anderson J, Diede SJ, Ebbinghaus S, Hodi FS. Durable Complete Response After Discontinuation of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(17):1668–74. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.75.6270.
Puzanov I, Ribas A, Robert C, Schachter J, Nyakas M, Daud A, Arance A, Carlino MS, O'Day SJ, Long GV, Margolin KA, Dummer R, Schadendorf D, Lutzky J, Ascierto PA, Tarhini A, Lin J, Mogg R, Homet Moreno B, Ibrahim N, Hamid O. Association of BRAF V600E/K Mutation Status and Prior BRAF/MEK Inhibition With Pembrolizumab Outcomes in Advanced Melanoma: Pooled Analysis of 3 Clinical Trials. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(8):1256–64. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2288.
Hu-Lieskovan S, Robert L, Homet Moreno B, Ribas A. Combining targeted therapy with immunotherapy in BRAF-mutant melanoma: promise and challenges. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(21):2248–54. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.52.1377.
Dummer R, Lebbe C, Atkinson V, Mandala M, Nathan PD, Arance A, Richtig E, Yamazaki N, Robert C, Schadendorf D, Tawbi HA, Ascierto PA, Ribas A, Flaherty KT, Pakhle N, Campbell CD, Gusenleitner D, Masood A, Brase JC, Gasal E, Long GV. Combined PD-1, BRAF and MEK inhibition in advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma: safety run-in and biomarker cohorts of COMBI-i. Nat Med. 2020;26(10):1557–63. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1082-2.
Gutzmer R, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, Robert C, Lewis K, Protsenko S, Pereira RP, Eigentler T, Rutkowski P, Demidov L, Manikhas GM, Yan Y, Huang KC, Uyei A, McNally V, McArthur GA, Ascierto PA. Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma (IMspire150): primary analysis of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10240):1835–44. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30934-X.
Ferrucci PF, Di Giacomo AM, Del Vecchio M, Atkinson V, Schmidt H, Schachter J, Queirolo P, Long GV, Stephens R, Svane IM, Lotem M, Abu-Amna M, Gasal E, Ghori R, Diede SJ, Croydon ES, Ribas A, Ascierto PA, team K-i (2020) KEYNOTE-022 part 3: a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 study of pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib in BRAF-mutant melanoma. J Immunother Cancer 8 (2). doi:10.1136/jitc-2020-001806.
Nathan P, Dummer R, Long GV, Ascierto PA, Tawbi HA, Robert6 C, Rutkowski P, Leonov O, Dutriaux C, Mandala' M, Lorigan P, Ferrucci PF, Flaherty KT, Brase JC, Green S, Haas T, Masood A, Gasal E, Ribas A, Schadendorf D. Spartalizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Results from the randomized part 3 of the phase III COMBI-i trial. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(suppl_4):1142–215.
Cronin M, Ross JS. Comprehensive next-generation cancer genome sequencing in the era of targeted therapy and personalized oncology. Biomark Med. 2011;5(3):293–305. doi:10.2217/bmm.11.37.
Moser JC, Chen D, Hu-Lieskovan S, Grossmann KF, Patel S, Colonna SV, Ying J, Hyngstrom JR. Real-world survival of patients with advanced BRAF V600 mutated melanoma treated with front-line BRAF/MEK inhibitors, anti-PD-1 antibodies, or nivolumab/ipilimumab. Cancer Med. 2019;8(18):7637–43. doi:10.1002/cam4.2625.
Mason R, Dearden HC, Nguyen B, Soon JA, Smith JL, Randhawa M, Mant A, Warburton L, Lo S, Meniawy T, Guminski A, Parente P, Ali S, Haydon A, Long GV, Carlino MS, Millward M, Atkinson VG, Menzies AM. Combined ipilimumab and nivolumab first-line and after BRAF-targeted therapy in advanced melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2020;33(2):358–65. doi:10.1111/pcmr.12831.
Tarhini A, Benedict A, McDermott D, Rao S, Ambavane A, Gupte-Singh K, Sabater J, Ritchings C, Aponte-Ribero V, Regan MM, Atkins M. Sequential treatment approaches in the management of BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Immunotherapy. 2018;10(14):1241–52. doi:10.2217/imt-2018-0085.
Topalian SL, Sznol M, McDermott DF, Kluger HM, Carvajal RD, Sharfman WH, Brahmer JR, Lawrence DP, Atkins MB, Powderly JD, Leming PD, Lipson EJ, Puzanov I, Smith DC, Taube JM, Wigginton JM, Kollia GD, Gupta A, Pardoll DM, Sosman JA, Hodi FS. Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(10):1020–30. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.53.0105.
Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R, Wolchok JD, Hersey P, Joseph RW, Weber JS, Dronca R, Gangadhar TC, Patnaik A, Zarour H, Joshua AM, Gergich K, Elassaiss-Schaap J, Algazi A, Mateus C, Boasberg P, Tumeh PC, Chmielowski B, Ebbinghaus SW, Li XN, Kang SP, Ribas A. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(2):134–44. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1305133.
Falchook GS, Long GV, Kurzrock R, Kim KB, Arkenau TH, Brown MP, Hamid O, Infante JR, Millward M, Pavlick AC, O'Day SJ, Blackman SC, Curtis CM, Lebowitz P, Ma B, Ouellet D, Kefford RF. Dabrafenib in patients with melanoma, untreated brain metastases, and other solid tumours: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9829):1893–901. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60398-5.
Sperduto PW, Jiang W, Brown PD, Braunstein S, Sneed P, Wattson DA, Shih HA, Bangdiwala A, Shanley R, Lockney NA, Beal K, Lou E, Amatruda T, Sperduto WA, Kirkpatrick JP, Yeh N, Gaspar LE, Molitoris JK, Masucci L, Roberge D, Yu J, Chiang V, Mehta M. The Prognostic Value of BRAF, C-KIT, and NRAS Mutations in Melanoma Patients With Brain Metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(5):1069–77. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.03.030.

Table 1: Patient characteristics

Sex

Age range

Site

Mutation

Initial CKI

(mo)

CKI toxicity

TT Toxicity

CTCAE grade

R2 (mo)

Current status

50-60

Leg

V600E

pembro

4.6

none

nausea, anemia, interstitial nephritis

20.3

Off therapy

40-50

back

V600E

nivo

6.8

none

chronic nausea

11.2

Off therapy

20-30

back

V600E

ipi+nivo

5.1

fevers, chills, sweats, diarrhea

hand/foot syndrome, fatigue, floaters

22.6

Off therapy

60-70

scalp

V600E

pembro

2.8

headaches, syncope

DT/EB

diarrhea, rash

44.2

Off therapy

30-40

finger

V600E

nivo

10.3

diarrhea

7.4

CR-On Rx

20-30

neck

V600E

ipi

1.1

none

none-sudden death

0.4

Sudden death

50-60

arm

V600E

nivo

2.8

rash

DT/EB

rash, keratoacanthomas

22.9

CR-On Rx

40-50

ear

V600K

ipi+nivo

4.6

none

seronegative arthritis fatigue

35.5

Off therapy

40-50

arm

V600E

ipi+nivo

0.7

none

hand foot syndrome, keratoacanthomas

33.4

DOD-CNS

50-60

leg

V600E

ipi+nivo

0.5

none

visual blurring, photophobia, DVT
seronegative arthritis

50.6

Off therapy

20-30

leg

V600K

nivo

2.3

none

64.6

Off therapy

40-50

leg

V600E

Ipi+nivo

4.9

diarrhea, hypopituitarianism, eye pain

pulmonary granulomas

51.9

Off therapy

50-60

leg

V600E

ipi+nivo

0.3

none

diarrhea

33.2

Off therapy

50-60

leg

V600E

nivo

14.7

none

nausea, weight loss, abdominal
discomfort, shooting pains

18.8

AWD

50-60

back

V600E

ipi+nivo

2.8

none

EB/ET

None

6.3

DOD-CNS

60-70

back

V600K

ipi+nivo

4.0

Headaches, fatigue, hypotension, arthralgias, diarrhea

EB/DT

rash, fever
arthralgias, fatigue

9.0

AWD

80-90

back

V600E

ipi+nivo

0.7

none

DT/VC

joint aches,
maculopapular rash, pruritis

8.5

DOD-CNS

40-50

leg

V600E

pembro

3.3

scalp infection

arthralgia

6.3

DOD-CNS

60-70

back

c1794-1796 dup

ipi

0.3

none

0.6

DOD-CNS

50-60

back

V600E

pembro

3.5

none

15.4

DOD-CNS

50-60

chest

V600E

ipi/nivo

1.4

none

hypotension, anemia

7.7

DOD-CNS

50-60

leg

T599-V600 ins T

ipi+nivo

3.5

none

DT/EB

ataxia, sensory motor neuropathy,
immune nephritis

9.7

DOD

30-40

leg

V600E

ipi+nivo

0.5

diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, poor appetite

none

2.1

DOD-CNS

Initial checkpoint inhibitor therapy CKI: Ipi: ipilimumab; nivo, nivolumab, pembro, pembrolizumab; Targeted Therapy (TT): D, dabrafenib; T, trametinib; E, encorafenib; B, binimetinib; V, vemurafenib; C, cobimetinib; Objective response (OR): CR, complete response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; CR-On Rx, Complete response currently continuing on treatment; AWD, alive with disease; CR-off Rx, complete remission therapy discontinued; DOD, died of disease (no brain metastases), DOD-CNS, died from brain metastases;

Table 2

Melanoma extent at onset of TT+CKI treatment

Pt	Metastases	Brain metastases	LDH	additional characteristics	Outcome
1	SC, LN	yes	elevated		CR-Off
2	SC	no	nl		CR-Off
3	SC, LN, adrenal, liver, spleen, lung, bone	no	nl	bulky LN disease	CR-Off
4	SC, LN,lung	no	nl		CR-Off
5	SC bone	no	nl		CR-TT
6	SC, LN, liver, lung, bone	yes	elevated	miliary metastases	sudden death
7	SC, LN	no	nl	bulky LN disease	CR-TT
8	SC, LN	no	nl	bulky LN disease	CR-Off
9	SC, LN, lung bone	no	nl	miliary metastases	DOD
10	SC, LN	no	elevated	bulky LN disease	CR-Off
11	SC, LN, peritoneum, bone	no	nl	miliary metastases	CR-Off
12	SC, LN, lung bone	no	nl	miliary metastases	CR-Off
13	SC, LN	no	nl	bulky SC disease	CR-Off
14	SC, LN, peritoneal	no	nl		PD-alive
15	SC, intramuscular, LN, peritoneum, spleen, bone	yes	elevated	miliary metastases	DOD
16	SC, LN	no	elevated		DOD
17	SC, LN	no	nl		DOD
18	SC, LN, bone	yes	nl		DOD
19	LN, adrenal, liver, spleen, lung, bone	yes	elevated		DOD
20	lung	no	nl		DOD
21	SC, intramuscular, LN, lung, liver, spleen, adrenal	yes	elevated		DOD
22	lung, liver, LN, bone	yes	elevated		DOD
23	lung	yes	nl		DOD

SC, subcutaneous; LN, lymph nodes; nl, normal, CR-Off, ongoing complete response, off all therapy, CR-TT, complete response continuing targeted therapy, DOD, dead of disease, PD-alive, progressive disease, remains alive

Download PDF

Editor assigned by journal
14 Mar, 2021
Submission checks completed at journal
14 Mar, 2021
Editor invited by journal
14 Mar, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Cautious Addition of Targeted Therapy to PD-1 Inhibitors after Initial Progression of BRAF Mutant Metastatic Melanoma on Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Patients And Methods

Treatment Regimens

Statistical Analyses

Results

Patient Characteristics

CKI Treatment Characteristics

TT Treatment Characteristics

Response and Survival Analysis

Progression

Toxicity

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Version 1