Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Induction therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors versus upfront ipilimumab/nivolumab in poor prognostic advanced melanoma

  • M. Bloem*
  • , A. J. M. van den Eertwegh
  • , J. B. A. G. Haanen
  • , M. J. B. Aarts
  • , F. W. P. J. van den Berkmortel
  • , C. U. Blank
  • , W. A. M. Blokx
  • , M. J. Boers-Sonderen
  • , C. D. M. Boreel
  • , J. W. B. de Groot
  • , G. A. P. Hospers
  • , E. Kapiteijn
  • , D. Piersma
  • , B. Rikhof
  • , L. H. J. Simkens
  • , A. M. Stevense-den Boer
  • , A. A. M. van der Veldt
  • , M. W. J. M. Wouters
  • , K. P. M. Suijkerbuijk
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Scientific Bureau
  • Leiden University
  • Netherlands Cancer Institute
  • Amsterdam UMC
  • Maastricht University
  • Zuyderland
  • Utrecht University
  • Radboud University Nijmegen
  • Isala
  • University of Groningen
  • Medisch Spectrum Twente
  • Medical Centre Leeuwarden
  • Maxima Medical Centre
  • Amphia Hospital
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

23 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BRAF/MEK inhibitor induction therapy (BRAF/MEK-i) followed by ipilimumab/nivolumab (IPI/NIVO) did not show benefit over upfront IPI/NIVO in unselected advanced melanoma patients in clinical trial setting. We investigated BRAF/MEK-i in subgroups of patients with advanced melanoma and poor prognostic characteristics. Patients with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors (<120 days) followed by planned switch to IPI/NIVO or upfront IPI/NIVO between 2016 and 2023 were included from the nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed in propensity score-matched cohorts and subgroups (LDH 250–500 and >500U/L, symptomatic and asymptomatic brain metastases (BMs), liver metastases, ≥ 3 metastatic sites, and ECOG PS ≥ 2). We included 709 patients (187 BRAF/MEK-i and 522 upfront IPI/NIVO). In the matched cohort (n = 280), median PFS and OS were not statistically significantly different: 6.5 (95 %CI 5.3–8.1) and 20.0 (95 %CI 17.2–35.3) months for BRAF/MEK-i vs. 6.6 (95 %CI 4.3–11.3) and 54.0 (95 %CI 21.7–64.4) months for upfront IPI/NIVO. Upfront IPI/NIVO showed significantly improved PFS compared to BRAF/MEK-i for asymptomatic BMs (median 9.4 months (95 %CI 6.3–28.2) vs. 4.8 months (95 %CI 4.1–5.3); p < 0.01), and significantly improved OS for asymptomatic BMs (median 60.4 months (95 %CI 39.1-NR) vs. 16.2 months (95 %CI 11.7–31.8); p < 0.01), liver metastases (median 49.8 months (95 %CI 32.1–60.3) vs. 14.1 months (95 %CI 12.1–20.5); p < 0.01), LDH 250–500 U/L (median 52.7 months (95 %CI 35.1-NR) vs. 20.1 months (95 %CI 13.9–35.5); p = 0.03), and ≥ 3 metastatic sites (median 54.0 months (95 %CI 39.1-NR) vs. 16.7 months (95 %CI 13.8–24.8); p < 0.01). BRAF/MEK-i showed no significant benefit over upfront IPI/NIVO in matched and stratified analyses according to prognostic characteristics.

Original languageEnglish
Article number116062
JournalEur. J. Cancer
Volume230
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Nov 2025

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Advanced melanoma
  • BRAF/MEK inhibitors
  • Immunotherapy
  • Induction therapy
  • Melanoma

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Induction therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors versus upfront ipilimumab/nivolumab in poor prognostic advanced melanoma'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this