Encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer: real-life data from an Italian multicenter experience.
BEACON trial
BRAF V600E mutation
adjusted MAF
binimetinib
encorafenib
real-life studies
Journal
ESMO open
ISSN: 2059-7029
Titre abrégé: ESMO Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101690685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
received:
13
02
2022
revised:
03
04
2022
accepted:
06
04
2022
pubmed:
14
6
2022
medline:
12
7
2022
entrez:
13
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib showed increased objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated (mut) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Although no formal comparison was planned, addition of binimetinib to encorafenib plus cetuximab did not provide significant efficacy advantage. This real-life study was aimed at evaluating safety, activity, and efficacy of encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mut mCRC treated at 21 Italian centers within a nominal use program launched in May 2019. Out of 133 patients included, 97 (73%) received encorafenib plus cetuximab (targeted doublet) and 36 (27%) the same therapy plus binimetinib (targeted triplet). Most patients had Eastern Cooperative Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) of 0 or 1 (86%), right-sided primary tumor (69%), and synchronous disease (66%). Twenty (15%) tumors were DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI)-high. As many as 44 (34%) patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy, 122 (92%) were previously exposed to oxaliplatin, and 109 (82%) to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). Most frequent adverse events were asthenia (62%) and anti-EGFR-related skin rash (52%). Any grade nausea (P = 0.03), vomiting (P = 0.04), and diarrhea (P = 0.07) were more frequent with the triplet therapy, while melanocytic nevi were less common (P = 0.06). Overall, ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were 23% and 69%, respectively, with numerically higher rates in the triplet group (ORR 31% versus 17%, P = 0.12; DCR 78% versus 65%, P = 0.23). Median PFS and OS were 4.5 and 7.2 months, respectively. Worse ECOG-PS, peritoneal metastases, and more than one prior treatment were independent poor prognostic factors for PFS and OS. Clonality of BRAF mutation measured as adjusted mutant allele fraction in tumor tissue was not associated with clinical outcome. Our real-life data are consistent with those from the BEACON trial in terms of safety, activity, and efficacy. Patients in good general condition and not heavily pretreated are those more likely to derive benefit from the targeted treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib showed increased objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated (mut) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Although no formal comparison was planned, addition of binimetinib to encorafenib plus cetuximab did not provide significant efficacy advantage.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This real-life study was aimed at evaluating safety, activity, and efficacy of encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mut mCRC treated at 21 Italian centers within a nominal use program launched in May 2019.
RESULTS
Out of 133 patients included, 97 (73%) received encorafenib plus cetuximab (targeted doublet) and 36 (27%) the same therapy plus binimetinib (targeted triplet). Most patients had Eastern Cooperative Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) of 0 or 1 (86%), right-sided primary tumor (69%), and synchronous disease (66%). Twenty (15%) tumors were DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI)-high. As many as 44 (34%) patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy, 122 (92%) were previously exposed to oxaliplatin, and 109 (82%) to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). Most frequent adverse events were asthenia (62%) and anti-EGFR-related skin rash (52%). Any grade nausea (P = 0.03), vomiting (P = 0.04), and diarrhea (P = 0.07) were more frequent with the triplet therapy, while melanocytic nevi were less common (P = 0.06). Overall, ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were 23% and 69%, respectively, with numerically higher rates in the triplet group (ORR 31% versus 17%, P = 0.12; DCR 78% versus 65%, P = 0.23). Median PFS and OS were 4.5 and 7.2 months, respectively. Worse ECOG-PS, peritoneal metastases, and more than one prior treatment were independent poor prognostic factors for PFS and OS. Clonality of BRAF mutation measured as adjusted mutant allele fraction in tumor tissue was not associated with clinical outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
Our real-life data are consistent with those from the BEACON trial in terms of safety, activity, and efficacy. Patients in good general condition and not heavily pretreated are those more likely to derive benefit from the targeted treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35696748
pii: S2059-7029(22)00126-0
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100506
pmc: PMC9271503
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Benzimidazoles
0
Carbamates
0
Sulfonamides
0
binimetinib
181R97MR71
encorafenib
8L7891MRB6
BRAF protein, human
EC 2.7.11.1
Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf
EC 2.7.11.1
Cetuximab
PQX0D8J21J
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
100506Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure MS reports being on the advisory board and speakers’ bureau for MERCK, MSD, Sanofi, Amgen, BMS, EISAI, and Servier. SL reports being on the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Merck, Roche, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre-Fabre, GSK, and Servier; playing a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, MSD, Merck Serono, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Incyte, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Servier; research funding to institution from Bayer, Merck, Amgen, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CC reports honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Roche, and Servier; performing a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, MSD, and Roche; being on the speakers’ bureau for Servier; receiving/received research funding from Bayer, Merck, and Servier; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Roche and Servier. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Références
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;5(3):343-350
pubmed: 30476968
Ann Oncol. 2015 Aug;26(8):1710-4
pubmed: 25851630
Oncologist. 2022 May 6;27(5):371-379
pubmed: 35522557
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Sep;118:121-130
pubmed: 31330487
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Nov 23;19(12):
pubmed: 30477151
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Jan 1;27(1):52-59
pubmed: 33087330
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Feb 1;39(4):273-284
pubmed: 33503393
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 3;383(23):2207-2218
pubmed: 33264544
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381(17):1632-1643
pubmed: 31566309
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Feb 1;39(4):285-294
pubmed: 33356422
Ann Oncol. 2014 Sep;25 Suppl 3:iii1-9
pubmed: 25190710
Mol Oncol. 2017 Sep;11(9):1263-1272
pubmed: 28618197
Mol Oncol. 2019 Sep;13(9):1827-1835
pubmed: 31322322
Ann Oncol. 2021 Aug;32(8):959-967
pubmed: 33836264
ESMO Open. 2021 Aug;6(4):100211
pubmed: 34271310
Br J Cancer. 2019 Sep;121(6):434-442
pubmed: 31353365