PURPOSE: BRAF/MEK inhibition is a standard of care for patients with BRAF V600E/K–mutated metastatic melanoma. For patients with less frequent BRAF mutations, however, efficacy data are limited. METHODS: In the current study, 103 patients with metastatic melanoma with rare, activating non-V600E/K BRAF mutations that were treated with either a BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi), MEK inhibitor (MEKi), or the combination were included. BRAF mutation, patient and disease characteristics, response, and survival data were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patient tumors (56%) harbored a non-E/K V600 mutation, 38 (37%) a non-V600 mutation, and seven had both V600E and a rare BRAF mutation (7%). The most frequent mutations were V600R (43%; 44 of 103), L597P/Q/R/S (15%; 15 of 103), and K601E (11%; 11 of 103). Most patients had stage IV disease and 42% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase at BRAFi/MEKi initiation. Most patients received combined BRAFi/MEKi (58%) or BRAFi monotherapy (37%). Of the 58 patients with V600 mutations, overall response rate to BRAFi monotherapy and combination BRAFi/MEKi was 27% (six of 22) and 56% (20 of 36), respectively, whereas median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months and 8.0 months, respectively ( P = .002). Of the 38 patients with non-V600 mutations, overall response rate was 0% (zero of 15) to BRAFi, 40% (two of five) to MEKi, and 28% (five of 18) to combination treatment, with a median PFS of 1.8 months versus 3.7 months versus 3.3 months, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed superior survival (PFS and overall survival) with combination over monotherapy in rare V600 and non-V600 mutated melanoma. CONCLUSION: Patients with rare BRAF mutations can respond to targeted therapy, however, efficacy seems to be lower compared with V600E mutated melanoma. Combination BRAFi/MEKi seems to be the best regimen for both V600 and non-V600 mutations. Yet interpretation should be done with care because of the heterogeneity of patients with small sample sizes for some of the reported mutations.

Aim: Timing of radium-223 (Ra-223) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains challenging due to alternative options and short window of opportunity. Methods: Ra-223 treated...

Cabazitaxel and abiraterone have both received approval for treating metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients after first‐line docetaxel therapy. In the cabazitaxel and abiraterone sequential treatment (CAST) study, the clinical outcome of docetaxel‐treated mCRPC patients treated sequentially with both cabazitaxel and abiraterone was studied. Data were collected retrospectively from mCRPC patients at 12 hospitals across the Netherlands who initiated cabazitaxel and/or abiraterone before December 2012. Primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS); secondary measures were progression‐free survival (PFS), biochemical PFS, and best clinical and PSA response. Hospital admission data during treatment were collected, as well as toxicities resulting in treatment discontinuation or patient death. Sixty‐three and 69 patients received Cab→Abi (cabazitaxel prior to abiraterone) and Abi→Cab before July 10th, 2013, respectively. Median OS was 19.1 months and 17.0 months in Cab→Abi and Abi→Cab treated patients, respectively ( p = 0.369). Median PFS and biochemical PFS were significantly longer in Cab→Abi treated patients: 8.1 versus 6.5 ( p = 0.050) and 9.5 versus 7.7 months ( p = 0.024), respectively. Although partial responses to cabazitaxel occurred in both groups, Abi→Cab treated patients had a significantly decreased antitumor response from cabazitaxel than Cab→Abi treated patients (median PFS 5.0 versus 2.6 months, p < 0.001). Minor differences in toxicities were observed based on therapy sequence; generally, toxicity from cabazitaxel could be severe, while abiraterone toxicity was milder. This retrospective analysis indicates that primary progression on cabazitaxel or abiraterone did not preclude a response to the other agent in mCRPC patients. However, tumor response of both agents, particularly cabazitaxel, was lower when administered as higher‐line therapy in the selected study population.