4.7 Article

Trametinib Activity in Patients with Solid Tumors and Lymphomas Harboring BRAF Non-V600 Mutations or Fusions: Results from NCI-MATCH (EAY131)

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 8, Pages 1812-1819

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3443

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI of the NIH [CA180820, CA180794, CA233270, CA233230, CA233290, CA233329, CA233180]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Substantial preclinical evidence and case reports suggest that MEK inhibition is an active approach in tumors with BRAF mutations outside the V600 locus, and in BRAF fusions. Thus, Subprotocol R of the NCI-MATCH study tested the MEK inhibitor trametinib in this population. Patients and Methods: The NCI-MATCH study performed genomic profiling on tumor samples from patients with solid tumors and lymphomas progressing on standard therapies or with no standard treatments. Patients with prespecified fusions and non-V600 mutations in BRAF were assigned to Subprotocol R using the NCI-MATCHBOX algorithm. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Results: Among 50 patients assigned, 32 were eligible and received therapy with trametinib. Of these, 1 had a BRAF fusion and 31 had BRAF mutations (13 and 19 with class 2 and 3 mutations, respectively). There were no complete responses; 1 patient (3%) had a confirmed partial response (patient with breast ductal adenocarcinoma with BRAF G469E mutation) and 10 patients had stable disease as best response (clinical benefit rate 34%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months, and median overall survival was 5.7 months. Exploratory subgroup analyses showed that patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma (n = 8) had particularly poor PFS. No new toxicity signals were identified. Conclusions: Trametinib did not show promising clinical activity in patients with tumors harboring non-V600 BRAF mutations, and the subprotocol did not meet its primary endpoint.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available