Incidence and characteristics of melanoma brain metastases developing during treatment with vemurafenib

Vemurafenib is indicated for the treatment of patients with BRAF ^V600 -mutant metastatic melanoma. We studied for the first time the characteristics of brain metastases developed during treatment with vemurafenib in real-life conditions. We included all patients treated over 3 years with vemurafenib in our department for metastatic melanoma without initial brain involvement. Our primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of brain metastases in these patients. Our secondary endpoints were to identify the risk factors for metastases occurrence and their characteristics and course. In our retrospective cohort of 86 patients, 20 % had developed brain metastases on average 5.3 months after vemurafenib initiation. The median follow-up was 9 months (1–26 months). Radiological examinations revealed multiple brain metastases in 41 % of patients. The only risk factor for metastasis occurrence identified was a high number of metastatic sites when initiating vemurafenib (p = 0.045). Metastasis development was associated with a trend toward a decrease in overall survival from 12.8 to 8.5 months (p = 0.07) and a significant decrease in progression-free survival from 7 to 5 months (p = 0.04). Among the patients who developed brain metastases, 82 % died, of whom 64 % within 3 months, versus 58 % of patients without brain metastases over the same period. The extra-cerebral disease was well controlled in 59 % of patients during brain progression. In vemurafenib-treated melanoma patients, brain metastases are frequent and associated with a particularly poor prognosis. Because of their high frequency in patients with controlled extra-cerebral disease, brain explorations should be systematically performed during treatment.     

Salvage therapy with BRAF inhibitors for recurrent pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma: a retrospective case series

Pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (PXA) is a World Health Organization Grade 2 glioma that is uncommon (<1 % all adult gliomas) and seen primarily in children and young adults. PXA has been demonstrated to manifest the V600E BRAF mutation in nearly 70 % of all tumors, a mutation that constitutively activates the BRAF/MEK signaling pathway. Assess response and toxicity of a BRAF inhibitor, vemurafenib, in recurrent PXA manifesting the V600E mutation. Four adults [2 males; 2 female: median age 45 years (range 34–53)] with surgery, radiation and alkylator refractory recurrent PXA demonstrating the BRAF mutation (V600E) were treated with vemurafenib. A cycle of vemurafenib was defined as 4 weeks of continuous therapy. All toxicities seen were grade 2 and included arthralgia, photosensitivity, fatigue and nausea (1 patient each). The median number of cycles of therapy was 5 (range 2–10). Radiographic response was progressive disease in 1, stable disease in 2 and partial response in 1. Median progression free survival was 5 months (range 2–10 months). Median overall survival was 8 months (range 4–14 months). In this small retrospective series of select patients with recurrent PXA manifesting the BRAF V600E activating mutation, vemurafenib appears to have single agent activity with manageable toxicity. Confirmation in a larger series of similar patients is required.     

Hirnmetastasen des Melanoms

Context

Brain metastases occur in the majority of patients with metastatic melanoma and are the most common cause of death. Until recently, local therapy (neurosurgery, radiosurgery and whole brain radiotherapy) was the only option for a chance of disease control in the brain. Systemic treatment options are now available.

Objective

The aim of this study is to discuss the treatment options for brain metastases from melanoma.

Material and methods

Treatment recommendations are given in consideration of the S3 guidelines on diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma and recent publications (Pubmed and manual search).

Results

In limited brain metastases, neurosurgery and radiosurgery are established treatments that can prolong survival. Immunotherapy with ipilimumab appears to have activity in patients with brain metastases, particularly when metastases are small and asymptomatic (response rate 16?% and median overall survival 7 months). The BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib achieved response rates of 30–40?% and a median overall survival of 7–8 months in patients with asymptomatic BRAF mutation brain metastases. The intracranial disease control rate was 80–90?%. In patients with symptomatic BRAF mutation brain metastases, the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib showed activity with a disease control rate of >?80?% and a median overall survival of 5 months. In symptomatic multiple brain metastases, palliative whole brain radiotherapy is an established treatment even though it has failed to show an overall survival benefit. Corticosteroids and antiepileptic drugs are indicated for patients presenting with intracranial hypertension and epileptic seizures. Treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma and brain metastases should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team.

Conclusion

The therapeutic options for patients with brain metastases from melanoma have improved in recent years. Presently, there are several effective local and systemic treatments available.     

Integrating New Therapies in the Treatment of Advanced Melanoma

OPINION STATEMENT: Treatments for advanced melanoma have evolved rapidly based on improved understanding of the pathways that determine T-cell responses and knowledge of growth-related mutations, which can be targeted with new classes of pharmacologic agents. The FDA approved ipilimumab and vemurafenib for advanced melanoma in 2011. Our practice is to evaluate all tumors from patients with metastatic disease for the presence of a BRAF mutation (Fig. 1). More than 20?years of follow-up show that responders to IL-2 can be cured of their melanoma. Therefore, we recommend high-dose IL-2 as first line therapy for patients with excellent functional status and normal cardiopulmonary reserve regardless of their BRAF mutation status. We use ipilimumab, which can induce durable tumor regressions and improved survival, as initial therapy for patients who refuse or are not candidates for IL-2, also regardless of their BRAF mutation status. Ipilimumab can be used as salvage therapy for patients with advanced disease after IL-2 or vemurafenib. Targeted therapies such as vemurafenib or imatinib can be offered to patients whose melanomas express the BRAF V600E or C-Kit mutations. Vemurafenib is particularly useful for patients whose disease is progressing rapidly, as clinical improvement can be obtained within days of starting therapy and response rates may be as high as 70?%. The major reason we do not recommend vemurafenib as first line treatment in all patients whose tumors have BRAF mutations is the short median duration of response of approximately 7?months. Enrollment in a clinical trial should always be considered for patients with metastatic melanoma. The clinical trial focus has changed from finding any agent with activity in melanoma, to overcoming mechanisms of resistance and enhancing the immunomodulatory activity of these new agents that confer therapeutic benefit. Selected patients can benefit from surgical resection or radiation to manage oligometastatic disease.     

Long-term survival with modern therapeutic agents against metastatic melanoma—vemurafenib and ipilimumab in a daily life setting

Despite new therapeutic options, metastatic melanoma remains to be one of the most fatal tumors. With the development of BRAF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, overall survival could be prolonged significantly for the first time. Clinical studies implied that even long-term survival is possible with both types of drugs, but predictive markers are so far missing. In this study, we analyzed survival data from patients that received the first-in-class substances vemurafenib and ipilimumab, respectively, during the time period from registration of the drugs until availability of combination treatments. We aimed to evaluate the possibility of long-term survival in a daily life setting and to characterize patients that benefit from these drugs in order to gain insight into predictive attributes. Eighty patients were evaluated who were treated with either vemurafenib (n = 40) or ipilimumab (n = 40), and overall survival was analyzed. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who were still alive 24 months after induction of therapy (long-term survival). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.0 months for patients treated with vemurafenib and 10.0 months for patients treated with ipilimumab (log-rank P value = 0.689). Long-term survival was achieved in 32.5% of patients (42.3% vemurafenib, 57.7% ipilimumab). Negative predictors of long-term survival in the vemurafenib group were brain and liver metastases, as well as elevated LDH, S100ß and liver enzymes. For ipilimumab, an increase in lymphocytes and eosinophils during course of treatment correlated with long-term survival. Our real-life experience shows that long-term survival is possible with using both therapeutic agents, vemurafenib and ipilimumab. Pattern of metastases and laboratory values might be of interest in decision making for a specific therapeutic approach. Combination of drugs and observational studies in larger patient cohorts are necessary to further validate our findings.     

The impact of timing of immunotherapy with cranial irradiation in melanoma patients with brain metastases: intracranial progression,survival and toxicity

Immunotherapy (IT) is increasingly incorporated in the management of metastatic melanoma patients with brain metastases, but the impact of timing of IT with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the temporal significance of IT in melanoma patients treated with cranial radiation therapy (RT) with respect to patterns of intracranial progression, overall survival (OS), and toxicity. We retrospectively reviewed consecutive melanoma patients with brain metastases undergoing cranial RT and IT between 2008 and 2015. Concurrent IT/RT was defined as IT administration within 30 days of RT. Intracranial progression, OS and radionecrosis were assessed. We identified 74 patients with 136 treated brain metastases. Median OS was 13.9 months. Performance status, pre-SRS surgery, and intracranial progression were correlated with OS. Concurrent IT/RT was used in 35 (47.3%) patients. Patients receiving concurrent IT/RT were less likely to have a BRAF mutation (p?=?0.027) and more likely to be treated after 2013 (p?=?0.010) compared to non-concurrently treated patients. Patients receiving concurrent IT/RT were more likely to have intracranial progression within 60-days (54.3% vs. 30.8%, p?=?0.041). However, 25.7% of concurrent IT/RT patients attained?≥?1 year intracranial progression-free survival. There were no significant differences in symptomatic radionecrosis (11.4% vs. 12.8%, p?=?0.67). In conclusion, although melanoma patients with brain metastases receiving concurrent IT/RT were more likely to exhibit early intracranial disease progression, a significant proportion of non-early-progressors attained durable intracranial control. The combination of IT and cranial RT appears to be efficacious and safe. Prospective studies are required to clarify these retrospective findings.     

Overcoming resistance to BRAF inhibition in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma

Almost 50% of metastatic melanoma patients harbor a BRAF^V600 mutation andthe introduction of BRAF inhibitors has improved their treatment options. BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib achieved improved overall survival over chemotherapy and have been approved for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. However, most patients develop mechanisms of acquired resistance and about 15% of them do not achieve tumor regression at all, due to intrinsic resistance to therapy. Moreover, early adaptive responses limit the initial efficacy of BRAF inhibition, leading mostly to incomplete responses that may favor the selection of a sub-population of resistant clones and the acquisition of alterations that cause tumor regrowth and progressive disease.The purpose of this paper is to review the mechanisms of resistance to therapy with BRAF inhibitors and to discuss the strategies to overcome them based on pre-clinical and clinical evidences.     

Mutation landscape in melanoma patients clinical implications of heterogeneity of BRAF mutations

Background:

The detection of V600E BRAF mutations has fundamental clinical consequences as the treatment option with BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib or dabrafenib yields response rates of ∼48%. Heterogeneity with respect to BRAF mutation in different metastases has been described in single cases. As this has important implications for the determination of BRAF status and treatment of patients, it is essential to acquire more data.

Methods:

A total of 300 tumour samples from 187 melanoma patients were analysed for BRAF mutations by pyrosequencing. Equivocal results were confirmed by capillary sequencing. Clinical data with respect to melanoma type, tumour site and survival were summarised for 53 patients with multiple analysed tumour samples (2–13 per patient).

Results:

BRAF mutations were found in 84 patients (44.9%) and 144 tumour samples (48%) with BRAF mutations in 45.5% of primary tumours and 51.3% of metastases, respectively. In 10 out of 53 patients (18.9%) where multiple samples were analysed results were discordant with respect to mutation findings with wild-type and mutated tumours in the same patient. Mutations did not appear more frequently over the course of disease nor was its occurrence associated with a specific localisation of metastases.

Conclusion:

As heterogeneity with respect to BRAF mutation status is detected in melanoma patients, subsequent testing of initially wild-type patients can yield different results and thus make BRAF inhibitor therapy accessible. The role of heterogeneity in testing and for clinical response to therapy with a BRAF inhibitor needs to be further investigated.     

Safety of vemurafenib in patients with <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRAF</Emphasis><Superscript>V600</Superscript> mutated metastatic melanoma: the Spanish experience

Objectives

Vemurafenib tolerability was assessed in a large, open-label, multicentre study in patients with BRAF ^V600 mutated advanced melanoma. We investigated safety, tolerability and efficacy of vemurafenib in Spanish patients participating in that study.

Methods

Patients with previously treated or treatment-naive, unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV, BRAF ^V600 mutation-positive melanoma received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or death. The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

301 Spanish patients were included, 70 % with M1c disease, 22 % with brain metastases and 51 % with prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Most frequent adverse events included fatigue (48 %), arthralgia (45 %), rash (41 %), photosensitivity (34 %) and skin neoplasms (21 %). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (52 %), including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (including keratoacanthoma; 16 %), fatigue (6 %) and arthralgia (5 %). The ORR was 28 % (95 % CI 23–34 %). Responses occurred in patients with brain metastases (18 %), elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase (19 %) and poor performance status (15 %), and elderly patients (22 %). Median PFS was 5.8 (95 % CI 5.0–6.4) months; median OS was 10.5 (95 % CI 9.5–13.5) months.

Conclusion

Our results for Spanish patients in the vemurafenib safety study indicate similar efficacy and a comparable safety profile in Spanish patients with no new safety signals compared with the overall population. Clinical benefit was demonstrated in poor-prognosis patients and in those with favourable baseline characteristics, suggesting that poor-prognosis patients may also benefit from vemurafenib treatment.

     

Ongoing Response in BRAF V600E-Mutant Melanoma After Cessation of Intermittent Vemurafenib Therapy: A Case Report

The selective BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib yield high response rates and improved overall survival in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic melanoma. Treatment traditionally continues until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicity. Acquired drug resistance and toxicity are key challenges with the use of these drugs. Resistance to vemurafenib usually develops within 6–8 months. Management of drug toxicity typically involves stopping vemurafenib until resolution, before restarting at a lower dose, or permanently ceasing vemurafenib therapy. We have recently considered whether intermittent dosing could be used as an alternative to dose reduction/termination in the management of vemurafenib toxicity. One patient treated with intermittent vemurafenib was an 89-year-old woman with metastatic melanoma, who initially showed a good response to continuous dosing. Recurrent toxicity meant that the continuous vemurafenib dosage was repeatedly ceased before restarting at a lower dose. Ten months after vemurafenib was first begun, an intermittent dosing regimen was introduced in an attempt to control toxicity. This continued for 2 months, before cessation due to continued unacceptable toxicity. A further 24 months later, the patient remains fit and well in complete clinical remission, with no recurrence of her previous melanoma and no new primary malignancies. To the best of our knowledge, a continued response after the cessation of selective BRAF inhibitors has never before been described in melanoma. Induction of an immune response and/or epigenetic changes could explain continued disease response after cessation of vemurafenib therapy. Care should be taken when extrapolating the findings from the continued response after vemurafenib cessation to other tumour types. We recommend the collection and analysis of data to investigate the clinical responses seen after cessation of vemurafenib due to intolerable toxicities, which could help further explain vemurafenib’s mechanism of action.

Open image in new window

     

BRAF V600E-mutated lung adenocarcinoma with metastases to the brain responding to treatment with vemurafenib

Somatic BRAF mutations have been reported in 1–4% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), primarily in adenocarcinomas with the BRAF (V600E) mutation in about 50% of the cases. The role of BRAF mutation in NSCLC and the treatment for tumors with such mutations is still evolving. Our patient had metastatic NSCLC with metastases to her brain. Due to the BRAF (V600E) mutation in her tumor and her poor functional status, we offered her off-label treatment with vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor approved for use in metastatic melanoma. Our patient's visceral disease improved supporting vemurafenib's efficacy in the treatment of metastatic BRAF-mutated NSCLC. The regression of intracranial disease indicated vemurafenib was able to cross the blood–brain barrier and was efficacious in treating brain metastases in this patient with lung cancer.     

A multicenter DeCOG study on predictors of vemurafenib therapy outcome in melanoma: pretreatment impacts survival

This multicenter retrospective study investigated clinical characteristics as predictors of the outcome of treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma. Besides patient's overall performance status, serum LDH, age, and gender, the type of pretreatment was found to strongly impact therapy outcome.BackgroundKinase inhibitors targeting the BRAF V600 mutation have become standard in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Albeit in wide clinical use, the patterns associated with therapy outcome are not fully elucidated. The present study was aimed to identify predictive factors of therapy response and survival under the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib.Patients and methodsThis multicenter retrospective study analyzed patient, tumor, and pretreatment characteristics collected in BRAF V600-mutated stage IV melanoma patients before single-agent therapy with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib.ResultsA total of 300 patients from 14 centers were included into this study with a median follow-up time of 13.0 months. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.1 months; median overall survival (OS) was 7.6 months. Best response under vemurafenib was associated with serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; ≤ versus >upper normal limit;P = 0.0000001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) overall performance status (OPS) (0 versus ≥1;P = 0.00089), and BRAF mutation subtype (V600E versus V600K;P = 0.016). Multivariate analysis identified ECOG OPS ≥1 [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.88;P = 0.00005], immunotherapy pretreatment (HR = 0.53;P = 0.0067), elevated serum LDH (HR = 1.45;P = 0.012), age >55 years (HR = 0.72;P = 0.019), and chemotherapy pretreatment (HR = 1.39;P = 0.036) as independent predictors of PFS. For OS, elevated serum LDH (HR = 1.99;P = 0.00012), ECOG OPS ≥1 (HR = 1.90;P = 0.00063), age >55 years (HR = 0.65;P = 0.011), kinase inhibitor pretreatment (HR = 1.86;P = 0.014), immunotherapy pretreatment (HR = 0.57;P = 0.025), chemotherapy pretreatment (HR = 2.17;P = 0.039), and male gender (HR = 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.50–0.98;P = 0.039) were found as predictors.ConclusionOur data demonstrate that the type of pretreatment strongly influences the outcome of vemurafenib therapy, with a precedent immunotherapy showing a positive, and a prior chemotherapy and kinase inhibitors showing a negative impact on survival, respectively. Moreover, we show that the patient's OPS, serum LDH, age, and gender independently impact vemurafenib therapy outcome. These findings should be taken into account for the future design of therapy sequencing in BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma patients.     

Vemurafenib-induced neutrophilic panniculitis

Vemurafenib is a targeted therapy, used in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma who carry the BRAF V600E mutation, with a relative reduction of 63% in the risk of death. Several adverse events have been described previously, such as photosensitivity or squamous-cell carcinomas. Two cases of panniculitis have been reported recently with two different selective BRAF inhibitors. We report two cases of neutrophilic panniculitis in patients treated by vemurafenib for a metastatic melanoma. Clinical and biological examinations showed no indications for an immune nor an infectious cause of neutrophilic panniculitis. Thus, we believe that vemurafenib caused this panniculitis. Treatment with vemurafenib was maintained in both patients because of the clinical and radiological tumoral responses. One patient showed spontaneous recovery, whereas the other patient presented several recurrences of panniculitis. We believe that physicians should be aware of this cutaneous side effect of vemurafenib, but it should not lead to discontinuation of this treatment.     

Radiosensitization by BRAF inhibitor therapy—mechanism and frequency of toxicity in melanoma patients

BackgroundRecent evidence suggests that ionizing radiation may be associated with unexpected side-effects in melanoma patients treated with concomitant BRAF inhibitors. A large multicenter analysis was carried out to generate reliable safety data and elucidate the mechanism.MethodsA total of 161 melanoma patients from 11 European skin cancer centers were evaluated for acute and late toxicity, of whom 70 consecutive patients received 86 series of radiotherapy with concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy. To further characterize and quantify a possible radiosensitization by BRAF inhibitors, blood samples of 35 melanoma patients were used for individual radiosensitivity testing by fluorescence in situ hybridization of chromosomal breaks after ex vivo irradiation.ResultsWith radiotherapy and concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy the rate of acute radiodermatitis ≥2° was 36% and follicular cystic proliferation was seen in 13% of all radiotherapies. Non-skin toxicities included hearing disorders (4%) and dysphagia (2%). Following whole-brain radiotherapy, rates of radiodermatitis ≥2° were 44% and 8% (P < 0.001) for patients with and without BRAF inhibitor therapy, respectively. Concomitant treatment with vemurafenib induced acute radiodermatitis ≥2° more frequently than treatment with dabrafenib (40% versus 26%, P = 0.07). In line with these findings, analysis of chromosomal breaks ex vivo indicated significantly increased radiosensitivity for patients under vemurafenib (P = 0.004) and for patients switched from vemurafenib to dabrafenib (P = 0.002), but not for patients on dabrafenib only. No toxicities were reported after stereotactic treatment.ConclusionRadiotherapy with concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy is feasible with an acceptable increase in toxicity. Vemurafenib is a more potent radiosensitizer than dabrafenib.     

Vemurafenib and BRAF inhibition: a new class of treatment for metastatic melanoma

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved vemurafenib for the treatment of BRAF valine in exon 15, at codon 600 (V600E) mutant metastatic melanoma. Vemurafenib is a competitive small-molecule serine-threonine kinase inhibitor that functions by binding to the ATP-binding domain of mutant BRAF. Compared with dacarbazine chemotherapy, vemurafenib significantly improved the 6-month overall survival of patients from 64% to 84% and exhibited a response rate of approximately 50%. Median progression-free survival was also significantly improved with vemurafenib as compared with dacarbazine (5.3 versus 1.6 months, respectively), and this was consistent among groups analyzed, including age, sex, geography, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, disease stage, and serum lactate dehydrogenase. The success of targeting melanoma genomics has created a paradigm shift for future drug development. Currently, the elucidation of resistant mechanisms to vemurafenib therapy remains an important area of active investigation that will shape rational drug treatments for melanoma. The development of vemurafenib, the role of BRAF targeting, and the changing landscape of treatment for melanoma provide a new foundation for clinical investigation.     

Dabrafenib plus Trametinib: a Review in Advanced Melanoma with a <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRAF</Emphasis><Superscript><Emphasis Type="Italic">V600</Emphasis></Superscript> Mutation

The BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (Tafinlar^®) and the MEK inhibitor trametinib (Mekinist^®) are indicated, as monotherapy or in combination with each other, for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF ^V600 mutation. This article reviews the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in this indication and summarizes relevant pharmacological data. Dabrafenib plus trametinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), improved objective response rates (ORRs) and preserved health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) to a greater extent than dabrafenib (in the double-blind COMBI-d study) and vemurafenib (in the open-label COMBI-v study) in two large, randomized, phase III studies in treatment-naïve patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF ^V600E/K mutation. Limited treatment benefit with the combination was also seen in patients who had progressed on prior BRAF inhibitor therapy, as indicated by ORRs of ≤ 15 % and stable disease in ≤ 50 % of patients in small phase I and II studies. Combination therapy did not increase overall toxicity relative to dabrafenib or vemurafenib monotherapy, with most adverse events (AEs) mild or moderate in severity and generally manageable. Fewer skin-related AEs (e.g. cutaneous malignancies, hyperkeratinosis and hand-foot syndrome) were reported with combination therapy than with dabrafenib or vemurafenib, probably because of reduced paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway. Thus, dabrafenib plus trametinib provides an important treatment option for patients with BRAF ^V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Open image in new window

     

Vemurafenib in combination with cobimetinib in relapsed and refractory extramedullary multiple myeloma harboring the BRAF V600E mutation

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.     

Treatment of melanoma brain metastases: a new paradigm

Brain metastases occur commonly in patients with metastatic melanoma, are associated with a poor prognosis, and cause significant morbidity. Both surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery are used to control brain metastases and, in selected patients, improve survival. In those with extensive brain involvement, whole-brain radiotherapy can alleviate symptoms. Historically, systemic therapy has had little role to play in the management of melanoma brain metastases; however, early clinical trials of BRAF inhibitors have shown promising activity. This review examines the evidence for local and systemic treatments in the management of patients with melanoma brain metastases. We present a new treatment algorithm for melanoma patients with brain metastases, which integrates the evolving evidence for the use of BRAF inhibitors.     

The use of systemic therapies for the treatment of brain metastases in metastatic melanoma: Opportunities and unanswered questions

The development of brain metastases is common in patients with metastatic melanoma and heralds a particularly poor prognosis. The development of the immunological agent ipilimumab and targeted treatments such as the selective BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib have revolutionised the treatment of metastatic disease. Evidence from clinical trials suggest these drugs may be effective in the treatment of brain metastases from melanoma. However efficacy may be limited by a lack of penetration of the blood brain barrier (BBB) and by multi substrate efflux pumps expressed on the BBB. The role and sequencing of radiotherapy, both whole brain and stereotactic radiotherapy, is yet to be determined but combinations of radiotherapy and systemic therapies may further increase the effects of these drugs on brain metastases. Considering the impact of brain metastases on morbidity and mortality in metastatic melanoma, future research into systemic drug therapy for the treatment of brain metastases and improvements in BBB penetrance should be a priority.