
==== Front
NPJ Precis Oncol
NPJ Precis Oncol
NPJ Precision Oncology
2397-768X
Nature Publishing Group UK London

38627602
552
10.1038/s41698-024-00552-7
Review Article
BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC: disease overview and treatment landscape
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1565-8310
Planchard David david.planchard@gustaveroussy.fr

1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0542-6054
Sanborn Rachel E. 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8938-6699
Negrao Marcelo V. 3
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7814-3234
Vaishnavi Aria 4
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7329-6995
Smit Egbert F. 5
1 grid.14925.3b 0000 0001 2284 9388 Thoracic Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
2 grid.415290.b 0000 0004 0465 4685 Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, OR USA
3 https://ror.org/04twxam07 grid.240145.6 0000 0001 2291 4776 Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX USA
4 https://ror.org/04twxam07 grid.240145.6 0000 0001 2291 4776 Department of Cancer Biology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX USA
5 grid.10419.3d 0000000089452978 Department of Pulmonary Disease, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
16 4 2024
16 4 2024
2024
8 906 10 2023
15 2 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
In this review, we cover the current understanding of BRAF mutations and associated clinical characteristics in patients with metastatic NSCLC, approved and emerging treatment options, BRAF sequencing approaches, and unmet needs. The BRAFV600E mutation confers constitutive activity of the MAPK pathway, leading to enhanced growth, proliferation, and survival of tumor cells. Testing for BRAF mutations enables patients to be treated with therapies that directly target BRAFV600E and the MAPK pathway, but BRAF testing lags behind other oncogene testing in metastatic NSCLC. Additional therapies targeting BRAFV600E mutations provide options for patients with metastatic NSCLC. Emerging therapies and combinations under investigation could potentially overcome issues of resistance and target non-V600E mutations. Therefore, because targeted therapies with enhanced efficacy are on the horizon, being able to identify BRAF mutations in metastatic NSCLC may become even more important.

Subject terms

Non-small-cell lung cancer
Targeted therapies
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Mutations in the v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) gene have been found in ~4–8% of all cancers, with the greatest number found in colorectal cancer (CRC), melanoma, and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)1–3. The most common BRAF mutation is a point mutation (T1799A) resulting in an amino acid substitution at codon 600 (V600E), which confers constitutive BRAF kinase activity2,4,5. BRAFV600E accounts for ~1–2% of NSCLCs, making it an actionable therapeutic target given the success of other therapies that target actionable mutations with similar frequencies in NSCLC (e.g., ALK, EGFR)6–9. Targeted therapeutic approaches with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) demonstrated efficacy in phase 2 trials with generally acceptable toxicity in patients with BRAFV600-mutant advanced NSCLC10,11.

While BRAFV600E inhibitor monotherapy is initially effective, acquired resistance and paradoxical activation are associated with reactivation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway and subsequent disease progression12–14. To delay onset of resistance, BRAF inhibitors were combined with a downstream inhibitor of the MAPK pathway, MAPK kinase (MEK)14. Trametinib, a MEK inhibitor, in combination with dabrafenib showed durable anti-tumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC in phase 2 trials15–17. The combination of BRAF inhibitor encorafenib plus MEK inhibitor binimetinib is being investigated in ongoing phase 2 trials in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC5,18,19. Initial results of the PHAROS trial revealed the combination had substantial and durable anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile18. Based on the results from this study, in October 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved encorafenib plus binimetinib for patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC20. Current guidelines recommend dabrafenib plus trametinib or encorafenib plus binimetinib as preferred first-line treatment options or as subsequent treatment for BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC21. BRAF monotherapy could be considered in certain circumstances, such as lack of tolerability.

While there has been notable progress in effective treatments for BRAF-mutant NSCLC17,18, several uncertainties remain. Current guidelines for BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC recommend BRAF-targeted therapy in the first-line setting, but the optimal course for patients who do not tolerate or progress while on first-line BRAF and MEK inhibitor combinations remains ambiguous21,22. Second-line recommendations include immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or a combination; however, immunotherapy data are limited and conflicting for patients with BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC22–24. Current targeted therapeutic approaches have limited efficacy in patients with non-V600 BRAF mutations, and most clinical trials have focused primarily on the V600E mutation since its discovery11,17,18,25. There remains a need to better understand the incidence, impact, and management of brain metastases; mechanisms of resistance; optimal sequencing; and other patient- (e.g., smoking history) or disease-related factors (e.g., PD-L1 expression) that influence treatment outcomes of BRAF-mutant metastatic NSCLC. This manuscript provides a review of BRAF-mutant metastatic NSCLC and the therapeutic landscape with particular emphasis on targeted therapies for the V600E mutation.

BRAF-mutant metastatic NSCLC disease overview

Clinical characteristics

While BRAF mutations are predominantly found in adenocarcinomas (>85%), there is no clear association of BRAF mutation status with other patient characteristics, such as age, ethnicity, and sex6,8,9,26. Epidemiological patterns are difficult to identify since BRAF mutations occur in a small number of patients with advanced NSCLC5. One study reported that BRAFV600E mutations were significantly more common in females (P < 0.001), but that finding was not consistent with other studies6,10,26. While data are limited, studies have also shown that the incidence of BRAF mutations is lower in Asian patients than white patients6,26,27. Smoking history can be associated with BRAF mutations, as well as KRAS, MET, and other mutations9,28,29. However, a few studies have also suggested that BRAFV600E is less associated with smoking history than other BRAF mutations26,30,31. Therefore, all patients with advanced NSCLC regardless of smoking history should undergo broad-based mutation testing, including BRAF5,21,22. Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and tumor mutation burden (TMB) are potentially important indicators of immunotherapy response and are frequently elevated in BRAF-mutant NSCLC24. The prognostic implication of BRAF mutation status is inconclusive due to small patient numbers and conflicting studies8,26,28. However, a few studies reported worse outcomes with chemotherapy in patients with V600E mutations versus wild type (WT) BRAF and conflicting results for V600E versus non-V600E mutations6,31–33. In addition to the small patient number, discrepancies in patient characteristics and prognosis could be attributed to the heterogeneity of BRAF mutations in NSCLC33,34.

Classification of BRAF mutations

BRAF mutations are heterogenous with distinct mutation classes that each yield a functionally diverse BRAF protein, resulting in different clinical features and treatment ramifications33,35. BRAF-mutant proteins interact with and activate the MAPK pathway in various ways and to different degrees (Fig. 1)25,35,36. In the MAPK pathway, the signaling cascade begins with growth factor binding to receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) which facilitates RAS binding GTP14,25,36. Activated RAS promotes a cascade of activation starting with RAF family kinases (ARAF, BRAF, CRAF), which form activated RAF homo- or heterodimers. RAF kinases activate MEK, which subsequently activates extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK). ERK has multiple downstream targets, including transcription factors that promote cell growth, proliferation, and survival. Negative feedback loops from ERK also regulate the pathway25.Fig. 1 BRAF mutation classes and mechanism of actions for BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

Class I and II mutations are RAS-independent, constitutively active monomers (class I) or dimers (class II). Class III mutations are RAS-dependent dimers with compromised kinase activity. Current BRAF inhibitors are effective for class I-mutant monomers. Next-generation RAF inhibitors can inhibit dimers and may inhibit class II and III mutations. P, phosphorylation.

There are over 200 identified BRAF mutations categorized into three classes based on dimerization status, RAS-dependence, and kinase activity level5,37. Class I BRAF mutations occur on codon 600 (BRAFV600), substituting the valine to a glutamic acid, lysine, aspartic acid, arginine, or methionine (V600E, V600K, V600D, V600R, and V600M mutations, respectively) and can biochemically transform BRAF into a RAS-independent constitutively active monomer25,36. BRAFV600E is the most prevalent class I mutation and accounts for ~30–50% of all BRAF mutations in NSCLC6,7,33. Class I mutant proteins have a high level of kinase activity, and BRAFV600E is ~500-fold times more active than WT BRAF, leading to increased cellular proliferation4,36. Class I mutations all occur at codon 600 aberrantly activating monomers, but class II and III mutations occur at various other non-600 codons and form dimers5,25,36. Class II BRAF mutations span from G464 to K601, which includes the activation segment and P-loop domains of BRAF. These mutations, along with fusions and in-frame deletion mutations, are shown or predicted to be able to biochemically transform BRAF into a RAS-independent constitutively active dimer with ranges of intermediate to high kinase activity. Class III mutations, which tend to have impaired kinase activity, occur in the P-loop, catalytic loop, or DFG motif to form RAS-dependent heterodimers with CRAFWT. These mutations require upstream activation of RAS to amplify downstream signaling, similar to its normal physiological role and function.

Although constitutive activity of class I and II mutations can suppress RAS through ERK-negative feedback loop, class III mutations only mildly activate ERK, resulting in minimal negative feedback of RAS25,38. To overcome that feedback inhibition, class III BRAF mutations are often observed with concurrent RAS activating mutations25,33,38. While these coexisting mutations often occur in melanoma cancers, CRC and NSCLC cancers have fewer cases25,38: one study in NSCLC tumors reported coexisting RAS mutations in 22% of class III mutations (n = 54), including 42% of kinase-dead mutations (n = 19)33. This may be explained by basal RTK activation and subsequent RAS activity that is sufficient to support these class III mutants25.

Currently approved BRAF inhibitors effectively inhibit only class I mutant proteins and show substantially less efficacy against BRAF-mutant dimers (Fig. 1)25. BRAF monomer inhibitors binding to dimers can cause paradoxical transactivation of the unbound RAFWT protomer, enabling MEK/ERK signaling and subsequent disease progression12,13,25. Upstream inhibition may be an effective therapeutic strategy for treatment of class III mutations25,33,38. A better understanding of BRAF mutations, especially class II and III mutations, may enable the rational design of new targeted therapies and the development of next-generation drug combination strategies to treat BRAF-mutant cancers, including NSCLC25,33.

BRAF testing

Guidelines recommend that all patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC undergo broad-based molecular testing to identify molecular drivers—including but not limited to BRAFV600 mutations21,22. Recommended and approved molecular testing assays include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS)39–41. PCR offers rapid turn-around, reproducibility, specificity, sensitivity, and lower costs, but it is a single-gene assay typically limited to detection of V600E mutation39. Panel-based NGS has gained popularity for the ability to simultaneously test multiple genes, including BRAF, for both V600E and non-V600E mutations, which is more cost-effective than sequential single-gene assays and uses relatively little tumor tissue39,40. Availability of sufficient tumor tissue is a major constraint when testing for the numerous actionable mutations in NSCLC, so approaches that conserve tissue while providing a full molecular profile are being evaluated42. Liquid biopsy, a noninvasive and more rapid alternative to tissue biopsies that collects blood-based biomarkers—including circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), can be used to detect genomic alterations5,43. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic test that uses the monoclonal antibody VE1 to detect BRAFV600E-mutant proteins39,44. While there are no current standard recommendations for IHC in BRAFV600E mutation detection, guideline recommendations for other oncogenes suggest that IHC be confirmed with a molecular test22,39. BRAF testing rates lag behind other driver oncogene testing rates, likely due to limited tissue availability and the fact that other actionable biomarkers (e.g., EGFR, ALK, PD-L1) are prioritized for testing when a sequential selective approach is used45. Given the demonstrated efficacy of BRAFV600E inhibitors in NSCLC, there is a need to improve the rate of BRAF testing so the results can be applied to clinical decision-making.

Treatment landscape

BRAF and MEK inhibitors in solid tumors

The identification of BRAF mutations, especially V600E, and their role in cancer led to the development of highly-selective BRAF inhibitors such as vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and encorafenib (Figs. 1 and 2) 46–48. These small-molecule inhibitors preferentially bind to the active conformation of BRAF kinase; through competitive occupation of the ATP binding pocket, the drugs stabilize the active conformation, resulting in potent inhibition of BRAFV600 47–49. Both vemurafenib and dabrafenib have confirmed activity against V600E, V600K, V600R, and V600D BRAF mutations 50–52. Encorafenib has confirmed activity against BRAFV600E and BRAFV600K mutants and BRAFWT 48,49.Fig. 2 Timeline of key advancements in the treatment of BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC.

Positive data readouts for BRAF-mutant NSCLC (blue) and approved treatments for BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC (green) are shown. aBRAF inhibitors. bMEK inhibitors. cIn 2022, dabrafenib plus trametinib was approved for patients with unresectable metastatic BRAFV600E-mutant solid tumors who progressed on previous treatments and have no acceptable alternative option. dImmunotherapy that targets PD-1. eImmunotherapy that targets PD-L1.

BRAF inhibitor monotherapy has had varying degrees of efficacy in solid tumors53–55. In patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic melanoma, single-agent vemurafenib was associated with a relative reduction of 63% in the risk of death and 74% in the risk of tumor progression compared with dacarbazine; median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 months with vemurafenib (n = 275) and 1.6 months with dacarbazine (n = 274)53. With single-agent dabrafenib, patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic melanoma (n = 76) had an objective response rate (ORR) of 59%, median PFS of 6.3 months, and median overall survival (OS) of 13.1 months56. In the dose expansion phase of a single-agent encorafenib study in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, ORR was 60.0%, median PFS was 12.4 months (95% CI, 7.4–not estimable [NE]), and median OS was NE for BRAF inhibitor-naive patients (n = 15); corresponding data for BRAF inhibitor-pretreated patients (n = 18) were 22.2%, 1.9 months (95% CI, 0.9–3.7), and 9.07 months (95% CI, 3.68–10.84)57.

A basket study evaluated vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with nonmelanoma BRAFV600-mutant cancers55. NSCLC and CRC cohorts had ORRs of 42% (95% CI, 20–67%) and 0%, respectively (Table 1). The poor clinical activity of BRAF inhibitor monotherapy in patients with CRC was consistent in additional vemurafenib (5% partial response [PR]; n = 21), dabrafenib (11% PR; n = 9), and encorafenib studies (0% PR; n = 18)54,58,59. In patients with BRAFV600-mutant CRC, addition of cetuximab, an anti-EGFR-antibody, improved ORR with vemurafenib (4%; n = 27) and encorafenib (19.5%; n = 220)55,60.Table 1 Selected trials of BRAF and MEK inhibitors

Treatment	Mutation status	Patients, n	Median follow-up, mo	ORR (CR/PR), %	Median DOR, mo	Median time to response, mo	Median PFS, mo	Median OS, mo	Safety	Interruption, reduction, and permanent discontinuation, %a	Ref	
BRAF Inhibitor Monotherapy	
Vemurafenib	V600E (90%), V600G (5%), unknown V600 (5%)	20b (treatment-naive and previously treated)	NA	42 (0/42)	NA	NA	7.3	NE	Grade 3/4 AEs: 80%

Common any-grade AEs: decreased appetite (35%), nausea (35%), dyspnea (30%), hyperkeratosis (30%), vomiting (30%)

	NA	55	
Vemurafenib	V600E (98%), unspecified V600 (2%)	8 (treatment-naive)	10.7	37.5 (0/38)	NE	NE	12.9	NE	Grade 3/4 AEs: 77%

Common any-grade AEs: nausea (40%), hyperkeratosis (34%), decreased appetite (32%), arthralgia (31%)

	40, 61, 10	66	
54 (previously treated)	10.7	37.0 (0/37)	6.1	7.3	6.1	15.4	
Vemurafenib	V600E (96%), V600K (2%), V600D (1%), V600M (1%)	101 (previously treated)	23.9	44.8 (NA/NA)c	6.4	NA	5.2	10	SAEs: 36%

Common any-grade TRAEs: asthenia (56%), decreased appetite (46%)

	NA, NA, 24	11	
Dabrafenib	V600E	6 (treatment-naive)	NA	67 (0/67)	NA	NA	NA	NA	Grade 3/4 AEs: 44%

Common any-grade AEs: pyrexia (36%), asthenia (30%), hyperkeratosis (30%), decreased appetite (29%), nausea (27%), cutaneous SCC (12%)

	43, 18, 6	10	
78 (previously treated)	10.7	33 (NA/NA)	9.6	NA	5.5	12.7	
BRAF and MEK Inhibitor Combination Therapies	
Dabrafenib plus trametinib	V600E	36d (treatment-naive)	15.9	64 (6/58)	10.4	NA	10.9	24.6	Grade 3/4 AEs: 69%

Common any-grade AEs: pyrexia (64%), nausea (56%), diarrhea (36%), fatigue (36%), peripheral edema (36%), vomiting (33%), dry skin (33%), decreased appetite (33%)

	75, 39, 22	16	
Dabrafenib plus trametinib	V600E	57e (previously treated)	11.6	63.2 (3.5/59.6)	9.0	1.4f	9.7	NE	Grade 3/4 AEs: 49%

Common any-grade AEs: pyrexia (46%), nausea (40%), vomiting (35%), diarrhea (33%), asthenia (32%), decreased appetite (30%), cutaneous SCC (4%)

	61, 35, 12	15	
Encorafenib plus binimetinib

(PHAROS)

	V600Eg	59 (treatment-naive)	18.2h	75 (15/59)	NE	1.9	NE	NE	Grade 3/4 TRAEs: 41%

Common any-grade TRAEs: nausea (50%), diarrhea (43%), fatigue (32%), vomiting (29%)

All-causality pyrexia (22%)

	44, 24, 15	18	
39 (previously treated)	12.8h	46 (10/36)	16.7	1.7	9.3	NE	
AE adverse event, CR complete response, DOR duration of response, NA not available, NE not estimable or not reached, ORR objective response rate, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival, PR partial response, SAE serious AE, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, TRAE treatment-related AE.

aDose interruption, dose reduction, and permanent treatment discontinuation due to AEs.

bEfficacy and safety were analyzed for 19 patients. However, one patient dropped out prior to assessment of response and was included in the denominator for efficacy but as having no response.

cORR was analyzed for 96 patients.

dUpdated 5-year analysis reported ORR of 63.9%, median PFS of 10.8 months, and median OS of 17.3 months17.

eUpdated 5-year analysis reported ORR of 68.4%, median PFS of 10.2 months, and median OS of 18.2 months17.

fMedian time to response was reported as 6 weeks in the paper. Weeks to months was calculated with 1:0.23 conversion.

gOne previously treated patient had both V600D and V600E mutations in their tumor.

hMedian duration of follow-up for this study was for PFS.

While BRAF inhibitor monotherapy is initially effective, acquired resistance enables reactivation of the MAPK pathway, limiting the clinical utility of monotherapy14,61. In addition, BRAF monomer inhibitors can cause paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway in BRAFWT cells, which has been associated with hyperproliferative cutaneous events, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and keratoacanthoma12–14,57. BRAF monomer inhibitors were combined with downstream MEK inhibitors to overcome resistance and paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway, which increased efficacy and tolerability, resulting in several combination therapies being approved for unresectable metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma (e.g., dabrafenib plus trametinib, vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib)14,62–64. The FDA granted accelerated approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib treatment for previously treated unresectable or metastatic solid tumors with the BRAFV600E protein in patients with no alternative treatment options65. This approval was supported by the ROAR study, which enrolled 206 patients into eight cohorts, each a different BRAFV600E-mutant rare cancer. ORR ranged from 0% for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1) to 89% for hairy cell leukemia (n = 55); ORR was ≥33% for the remaining cohorts.

The safety profile of BRAF inhibitor monotherapy was similar across solid tumors; common adverse events (AEs) included arthralgia, fatigue, rash, cutaneous events (e.g., SCC, keratoacanthoma), and gastrointestinal issues (e.g., diarrhea, nausea)10,48,53,54,57,62,64,66. Drug-specific AEs include photosensitivity with vemurafenib, pyrexia with dabrafenib, and reduced incidences of SCC and keratoacanthoma with encorafenib. Adding a MEK inhibitor resulted in a few key differences in the safety profiles62,64: pyrexia was more frequent with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy15,62 and hyperproliferative cutaneous events were less common with dabrafenib plus trametinib and encorafenib plus binimetinib15,62,64.

BRAF and MEK inhibitors in metastatic NSCLC

Clinical trials with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy in patients with BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC are summarized in Table 110,11,55,66. In several trials, vemurafenib monotherapy was an effective treatment for treatment-naive (ORR: 37.5%; median PFS: 12.9 months) and previously treated patients (ORR: 37.0–44.8%; median PFS: 5.2–6.1 months) with BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC11,66. In one study, serious AEs occurred in 63% of patients, most commonly cutaneous SCC (15%) and keratoacanthoma (15%)66. Dabrafenib monotherapy was effective for previously treated patients (ORR: 33%; median PFS: 5.5 months) with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC; however, data were limited for treatment-naive patients because of a decision to prioritize the combination with trametinib with the expectation of improved response rates10. Pyrexia was the most common any-grade AE (36%), including grade 3 occurrences in 2% of patients. Pyrexia led to dose interruption or reduction in 11% and 4% of patients, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 42% of patients, including pyrexia in 6% of patients.

The combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors demonstrated synergistic anti-tumor activity with a manageable safety profile (Table 1)14–16,18. The multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial evaluated dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC15–17. At the initial data analysis with a median follow-up of 15.9 months, for treatment-naive patients (n = 36), ORR by investigator was 64% (95% CI, 46–79%), median duration of response (DOR) was 10.4 months (95% CI, 8.3–17.9), median PFS was 10.9 months (95% CI, 7.0–16.6), and median OS was 24.6 months (95% CI, 12.3–NR)16. The most common AEs included pyrexia (64%), nausea (56%), and diarrhea (36%); grade 3–4 AEs occurred in 69% of patients, including pyrexia (11%) (Fig. 3a). For previously treated patients (n = 57), with a median follow-up of 11.6 months, ORR by investigator was 63.2% (95% CI, 49.3–75.6%), median DOR was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.9–18.3), median PFS was 9.7 months (95% CI, 6.9–19.6), and median OS was immature15. The most common AEs included pyrexia (46%), nausea (40%), and vomiting (35%); grade 3–4 AEs occurred in 49% of patients, including pyrexia (2%) (Fig. 3a). At the 5-year follow-up analysis, median PFS and OS were 10.8 months (95% CI, 7.0–14.5) and 17.3 months (95% CI, 12.3–40.2) for treatment-naive patients and 10.2 months (95% CI, 6.9–16.7) and 18.2 months (95% CI, 14.3–28.6) for previously treated patients, respectively17. The most common AE remained pyrexia (56%), and grade 3–4 AEs occurred in 66% of patients with most manageable with dose modifications. Pyrexia led to dose reduction in 11 patients (12%) and permanent treatment discontinuation in two patients (2%). The addition of the MEK inhibitor was associated with lower incidence of cutaneous SCC compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy (4% versus 12%)10,15. Based on these data, the FDA and European Medicines Agency approved dabrafenib plus trametinib combination for treatment of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC67,68. A later retrospective analysis supported the use of dabrafenib plus trametinib, where the risk of death for treatment-naive patients with BRAF-mutant advanced NSCLC was significantly lower with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29–0.92; P = 0.03), and median OS was 17.3 months (95% CI, 14.6–NR) versus 9.7 months (95% CI, 6.4–19.6), respectively68.Fig. 3 Adverse events experienced by ≥10% of patients with BRAF/MEK combination therapies.

a Adverse events (AEs) shown for dabrafenib plus trametinib occurred in at least 10% of patients in combined data from interim analysis of treatment-naive and previously treated patients15,16. AEs led to dose reduction, dose interruption, and permanent treatment discontinuation in 37%, 67%, and 16% of patients. aChest pain includes musculoskeletal chest pain. b Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) shown for encorafenib plus binimetinib occurred in at least 10% of patients18. TRAEs led to dose reduction, dose interruption, and permanent treatment discontinuation in 24%, 44%, and 15% of patients. Comparisons of safety profiles should be done cautiously since data are from different trials and reported as all-causality AEs for one treatment combination and as TRAEs for the other combination. ALP alkaline phosphatase, ALT alanine aminotransferase, AST aspartate aminotransferase, CNS central nervous system, CPK creatine phosphokinase.

The combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib is being investigated in ongoing phase 2 trials in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC5,18,19. PHAROS, a single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial (NCT03915951), enrolled 98 patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC (n = 59 treatment-naive, n = 39 previously treated)18. In treatment-naive patients, with a median follow-up for PFS by independent radiology review (IRR) of 18.2 months (95% CI, 16.4–22.3), ORR assessed by IRR was 75% (95% CI, 62–85%), median DOR by IRR was NE (95% CI, 23.1–NE), and median PFS by IRR was NE (95% CI, 15.7–NE). In previously treated patients, with a median follow-up for PFS by IRR of 12.8 months (95% CI, 9.0–19.8), ORR by IRR was 46% (95% CI, 30–63%), median DOR by IRR was 16.7 months (95% CI, 7.4–NE), and median PFS by IRR was 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.2–NE). OS was NE in both groups. The most frequently reported treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were nausea (50%), diarrhea (43%), fatigue (32%), and vomiting (29%); serious TRAEs occurred in 14% of patients with the most common being colitis (3%) (Fig. 3b). All-causality pyrexia occurred in 22% of patients, and treatment-related pyrexia led to one dose interruption and no dose reductions or permanent discontinuations. The ENCO-BRAF trial (NCT04526782) includes treatment-naive and previously treated cohorts, with an estimated enrollment of 119 patients to conclude in 202619. Encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment was recently approved by the FDA for patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC based on the PHAROS trial20.

Primary and acquired drug resistance to BRAF-targeted therapy

Baseline concurrent mutations prior to receipt of targeted therapy have been identified in 22–30% of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC and may be a cause of primary resistance17,61,69. Common concurrent mutations included alterations in the TP53 and SETD2 genes and the PI3K (e.g., PIK3CA E545K, PTEN R14K) and MAPK (e.g., KRAS G12C) pathways17,18,61,69. The incidence of concurrent TP53 or RAS gene family mutations was higher with BRAF class II or III mutations than class I mutations31,33,70. In several studies, the presence of a concurrent mutation in TP53, PIK3CA, KRAS, or PTEN was associated with poorer outcomes17,61,69. In a study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib for BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC, patients with a concurrent mutation in the PI3K pathway (n = 4) had a median OS of 5.4 months compared with 22.7 months in patients without an identified concurrent mutation (n = 34)17. In the PHAROS trial, which evaluated encorafenib plus binimetinib for BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC, concurrent mutations were identified, with the most common being SETD2 and TP53 (43%, each); however, there was no association between concurrent mutations and outcome18. As most of this data comes from studies with small numbers of patients, further research is necessary to understand the impact of concurrent mutations in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC17,18,69.

The mechanisms of acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors, alone or combined with MEK inhibitors, are poorly understood, and there is no standardized sequential treatment strategy21,61. While data are limited, acquired resistance appears to occur through bypassing or reactivating the MAPK pathway14,61. Bypassing the MAPK pathway and activating a parallel pathway (e.g., PI3K/AKT) can lead to disease progression. A PTEN frameshift mutation that could potentially activate the PI3K pathway was identified in a patient with BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC that progressed on dabrafenib71. In preclinical BRAFV600E-mutant lung cancer models, the presence of a cooperating mutation silencing RBMS3, a regulator of the WNT pathway, promoted resistance to dabrafenib plus trametinib72.

Reactivation of the MAPK pathway can occur in BRAF-dependent or -independent manners. Resistance to targeted therapies often occurs due to secondary mutations or epigenetic changes in the target gene, and an aberrant splice variant of BRAF was identified in BRAFV600E NSCLC cells that acquired resistance73,74. However, secondary BRAF mutations may be rare, as none were discovered in several resistance studies with BRAF-mutant NSCLC and melanoma61,73,75. BRAF-independent reactivation of the MAPK pathway includes alterations either upstream or downstream of BRAF14. Mutations in RAS (NRAS, KRAS) were discovered in a few studies61,71. Strong evidence came from a study that compared ctDNA sequencing at diagnosis and disease progression for 35 patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC who progressed on either BRAF inhibitor monotherapy or dabrafenib plus trametinib61. RAS mutations (KRAS G12V; KRAS Q61R; NRAS Q61R) were present at disease progression and not diagnosis, which suggests mutation occurred during treatment. Resistance studies of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant melanoma suggested that upregulation of RAS or overexpression of ARAF and CRAF could alleviate BRAF-dependence in tumor cells73,75. Downstream mutations in MEK1 were also identified in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC that progressed on dabrafenib plus trametinib71. Further understanding of acquired resistance mechanisms is critical to inform optimal sequencing and providing insight for evaluation of combination approaches or next-generation target therapies.

Immunotherapy

Compared with studies with BRAF and MEK inhibitors, data concerning efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC are limited; studies have not prospectively enrolled patients with BRAFV600 mutations, and immunotherapy is not specifically approved for patients with this mutation76–79. Evidence for efficacy of immunotherapy is derived from conflicting, small, retrospective studies (Table 2)23,24,77. In a multi-cohort retrospective study of immunotherapy in patients with oncogene-driven advanced lung cancer, patients (n = 10) with BRAF-mutant NSCLC in one cohort had a significantly longer median PFS (7.4 months) than patients with other common oncogene drivers (versus KRAS 2.8 months; HR 0.36, 95% CI, 0.14–0.88; P = 0.026)24. In the other cohort, PFS was longer in patients with V600E mutations (n = 30; 9.8 months) versus non-V600E mutations (n = 35; 5.4 months). However, in another retrospective study, similar PFS (2.1–3.4 months) was reported across oncogenes with immunotherapy77. In that study, two trends emerged in the BRAF cohort (n = 43). PFS was longer in patients who previously or currently smoked (4.1 months) versus had never smoked (1.9 months) and with non-V600E mutations (4.1 months) versus V600E mutations (1.8 months). According to guidelines of the European Society for Medical Oncology, patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic NSCLC that progresses on BRAF plus MEK inhibitor should receive immunotherapy with optional chemotherapy (in patients with smoking history) or chemotherapy with optional immunotherapy (in patients without smoking history)22.Table 2 Efficacy data for chemotherapy and immunotherapy trials that included patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC

Treatment	Patients, n (BRAF mutation)	Treatment status	Median follow-up, mo	ORR, %	Median PFS, mo	Median OS, mo	Ref	
Platinum-based doublet chemotherapya	7 (V600E)	Treatment-naive	13.7	29	4.1	10.8b	6	
7 (non-V600E)	13.7	71	8.9	15.2	
Platinum-based doublet chemotherapyc	23 (V600E and non-V600E)	Treatment-naive	NA	NA	6.4	18.4	104	
Immunotherapyd	12 (V600E)	Treatment-naive and previously treated	5.5	25	3.7	NE	76	
10 (non-V600E)	33e	4.1	NE	
Immunotherapyf	17 (V600E)	Treatment-naive and previously treated	16.1	24	1.8	8.2	77	
18 (non-V600E)	4.1	17.2	
Immunotherapyg	26 (V600)	Treatment-naive and previously treated	9.2	26	5.3	22.5	23	
18 (non-V600)	35	4.9	12.0	
Immunotherapyh	8 (V600E)	Treatment-naive	NA	38	10.5	NA	105	
7 (non-V600E)	43	10.8	NA	
Immunotherapy as monotherapy or in combinationi	43 (V600E)	Treatment-naive and previously treated	16.2	51.7	10.0	18.5	83	
16 (non-V600E)	31.1	8.0	16.0	
Immunotherapy-combined chemotherapyj	9 (V600E)	Treatment-naive	NA	56	18.5	NA	82	
7 (V600E)	Previously treated	NA	29	1.9	NA	
NA not available, NE not estimable, ORR objective response rate, OS overall survival, PD-1 programmed cell death protein 1, PD-L1 programmed death ligand 1, PFS progression-free survival.

aAll patients received platinum-based doublet combination chemotherapy.

bMedian OS was calculated for n = 12 in each group.

cAll patients received platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (most commonly, carboplatin-pemetrexed with or without bevacizumab, but several patients received cisplatin instead of carboplatin and docetaxel or etoposide instead of pemetrexed).

dIncludes nivolumab (n = 11), pembrolizumab (n = 10), and atezolizumab (n = 1).

eORR for non-V600E was calculated out of 9 patients.

fMost patients (94%) in the full study received anti-PD-1 antibodies (nivolumab [n = 466], pembrolizumab [n = 48], other [n = 6]) or anti-PD-L1 antibodies (atezolizumab [n = 19], durvalumab [n = 11], other [n = 1]). The treatment breakdown for specifically the BRAF-mutant cohort was not reported.

gFor the V600 cohort, this includes nivolumab (n = 18), pembrolizumab (n = 6), and other (n = 2). For the non-V600 cohort, this includes nivolumab (n = 16) and pembrolizumab (n = 2).

hPrimarily pembrolizumab either as monotherapy or in conjunction with chemoimmunotherapy for three of the non-V600E patients.

iSpecific immunotherapy treatments were not provided. Of the patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC (n = 59), 30.5% received immunotherapy monotherapy, 62.7% received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy, and 6.8% received immunotherapy plus anti-angiogenesis.

jSpecific therapies were not specified.

Chemotherapy

Prior to the development of targeted therapy for BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC, platinum-based chemotherapy was the standard of care68,78. However, retrospective studies reported that patients with BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC had poorer outcomes with platinum-based chemotherapy than those with BRAFWT NSCLC (Table 2)6,32. While those retrospective studies also reported a shorter PFS in patients with V600E mutations (4.1–5.2 months) versus non-V600E mutations (6.4–8.9 months), another retrospective study reported that carboplatin-pemetrexed in patients with treatment-naive BRAF-mutant metastatic NSCLC resulted in longer PFS in patients with class I mutations (6.2 months) versus class II or III mutations (3.3 months and 4.9 months, respectively)33. Additionally, in a multi-institutional prospective lung cancer screening project, median PFS with platinum-containing chemotherapy was longer in patients with class I mutations (11.5 months) than in those with class III mutations (5.3 months)31. Several trials demonstrated that BRAF monotherapy or BRAF plus MEK inhibitor therapy was effective in patients who had progressed on chemotherapy10,15,18,66. Chemotherapy remains a second-line recommendation for patients with a BRAFV600 mutation21,22.

Immunochemotherapy

The combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy is approved for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC but not specifically for patients with BRAFV600E mutations80. In a phase 3 trial of treatment-naive patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, the combination of pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and a platinum resulted in significantly longer median PFS compared with chemotherapy alone (8.8 versus 4.9 months; HR = 0.52; P < 0.001)81. In a small retrospective study in China, immunotherapy plus chemotherapy (n = 9) in treatment-naive patients with BRAFV600E-mutant advanced NSCLC resulted in a significantly longer median PFS compared with chemotherapy or targeted therapy (n = 20; 18.5 versus 4.1 months; P = 0.0098)82. This efficacy benefit with immunochemotherapy was not observed in later lines. Another retrospective study showed similar efficacy with immunotherapy-based treatments in patients with advanced NSCLC with or without BRAF mutations; median PFS was 8.4 months in both patient populations83. In the BRAF cohort, median PFS was similar for V600E and non-600E mutations (10.0 versus 8.0 months). Median PFS was longer in the first line than in subsequent treatment lines in patients with WT (12.8 versus 5.6 months) and BRAF-mutant (11.2 versus 4.0 months) NSCLC. These studies suggest that immunotherapy-based treatments are an option for patients with BRAFV600E-mutant advanced NSCLC82,83.

Emerging treatments and approaches

Immunotherapy plus targeted therapy combinations

The combination of BRAF-targeted therapy plus immunotherapy may produce a synergistic anti-tumor effect; tolerability of the combined approach will be a key consideration14. Studies have investigated various combinations of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors and reported positive outcomes in solid tumors, including BRAFV600E/K-mutant melanoma, CRC, and BRAFV600E-mutant NSCLC84–87. In a phase 1/1b, global, multicenter, open-label study, cobimetinib and atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) were evaluated in immunotherapy-naive patients with advanced solid tumors (n = 150); patients had received a median of 5.0 prior systemic therapies, and 15% had BRAF mutations84. In patients with metastatic CRC (n = 84), ORR was 8% (95% CI, 3–16%), median PFS was 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.8–2.3), and median OS was 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.2–14.1). In patients with melanoma (n = 22), ORR was 41% (95% CI, 21–64%), median PFS was 13.3 months (95% CI, 2.8–NE), and median OS was NE (95% CI, 18.7–NE). In patients with NSCLC (n = 28), ORR was 18% (95% CI, 6–37%), median PFS was 5.8 months (95% CI, 2.7–9.2), and median OS was 13.2 months (95% CI, 9.2–NE). In the safety analysis (n = 150), the most common TRAEs were diarrhea (67%), rash (48%), and fatigue (40%); 44% of patients reported grade 3–4 TRAEs. Another trial (NCT03991819) is evaluating the combination of binimetinib and pembrolizumab in patients with EGFR WT, ALK-rearrangement–negative advanced or metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50%; initial results reported that 33% of nine evaluable patients had a partial response, including one patient with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC85,86.

Trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of triple combination therapies for BRAF-mutant melanomas87–89. A phase 2, randomized trial enrolled patients with treatment-naive advanced melanoma with a V600E or V600K mutation to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib with or without pembrolizumab (triplet, n = 60; doublet, n = 60)88. When compared with the doublet therapy, triplet therapy resulted in longer median PFS (10.7 versus 16.9 months) and higher incidence of grade ≥3 TRAEs (25.0% versus 58.3%). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 70% of patients in the triplet arm and 45% of patients in the doublet arm. Immune-mediated AEs occurred in 15% and 52% of patients in the doublet and triplet treatment arms, respectively; pneumonitis (17%) and hypothyroidism (8%) were the most common immune-mediated AEs reported with triplet therapy. An open-label, phase 1/2 trial combined encorafenib plus binimetinib with pembrolizumab for patients with BRAFV600-mutant advanced melanoma (n = 15); ORR was 64% (95% CI, 35–87%), and 12-month PFS was 41% (95% CI, 13–68%)87. TRAEs were reported by 87% of patients; grade ≥3 TRAEs were reported in 53% of patients, with increases in aspartate aminotransferases, gamma glutamyl transferase, and creatine phosphokinase being the most common. A meta-analysis of triplet therapies compared with doublet therapy or monotherapy for melanoma revealed that triplet therapy significantly improved PFS and OS but was associated with increased frequency of immune-related AEs, including hypothyroidism, arthralgia, myalgia, alanine aminotransferase elevations, aspartate aminotransferase elevations, asthenia, and pyrexia90. Triplet therapy did not increase the overall incidence of AEs or grade ≥3 AEs. The increased incidence of AEs should be considered when determining the optimal combination of immunotherapy and targeted therapy88,90.

Next-generation BRAF inhibitors

Next-generation BRAF inhibitors target dimerization since it is an essential component of activation for WT and many mutant BRAF kinases, plays a role in resistance mechanisms to BRAF inhibitors, and is associated with AEs91. These drugs were developed following two main strategies aimed at inhibiting mutant RAF while preventing paradoxical activation and common acquired resistance mechanisms92. Type II pan-RAF inhibitors bind the active conformation of RAF monomers and dimers92,93. Despite the name of pan-RAF, at least three of these agents (naporafenib [LXH254], tovorafenib [TAK-580], belvarafenib) demonstrated poor inhibition of ARAF and potent inhibition of WT and mutant versions of CRAF and BRAF93. Paradox breakers (e.g., PLX8394, PLX7904) are more specific BRAF inhibitors that alter the dimer interface and subsequently prevent BRAF-homodimer and BRAF:CRAF heterodimer formations92,94. Data from preclinical and clinical studies suggest that BRAF non-V600 mutations could be targeted with these new inhibitors, and several are being investigated in ongoing trials to better define their efficacy and safety (Table 3)34,95,96.Table 3 Ongoing trials and initial results of emerging BRAF inhibitors

Treatment	Trial	Phase	Patients	Actual/estimated enrollment	Primary outcomes	Ref	
KIN-2787	Preclinical	Biochemical	BRAF-mutant human cancer models	–	Nanomolar to picomolar potency against RAF1, BRAF, and ARAF (IC50: 0.06–3.46 nM)	106	
Cell-based assays	BRAF-mutant human cancer models	–	Class II and III BRAF-mutant cell lines were the most responsive; 19- and 7-fold more sensitive than cells with WT BRAF, respectively	
KIN-2787 ± binimetinib	NCT04913285	1/1b	BRAF- and/or NRAS-mutant solid tumors; BRAF and MEK inhibitor-naive for phase 1b	262	Phase 1a: MTD and DLTs

Phase 1b: ORR, DCR, DOR, and duration of SD

	107	
Naporafenib (LXH254) + LTT462 or trametinib or ribociclib	NCT02974725	1b	KRAS- or BRAF-mutant advanced or metastatic NSCLC; NRAS-mutant cutaneous melanoma	242 (actual)	Number of patients with AEs, DLTs, tolerability measured by number and reasons for interruptions/reductions, dose intensity of study drug	108	
Initial results	Escalation	KRAS- or BRAF-mutant advanced or metastatic NSCLC; NRAS-mutant melanoma	36	6 patients reported grade ≥3 DLTs, including dermatitis acneiform (n = 2), maculopapular rash (n = 2), increased lipase (n = 1), and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (n = 1)	95	
Expansion	NRAS-mutant melanoma	Cohort 1 (n = 15): received naporafenib 200 mg twice daily + trametinib 1 mg once daily

Cohort 2 (n = 15): received naporafenib 400 mg twice daily + trametinib 0.5 mg once daily

	Safety (n = 30)

100% reported a TRAE; most common was rash (80%)

Efficacy:

Cohort 1: ORR was 46.7% (95% CI, 21.3–73.4), median DOR was 3.75 months (95% CI, 1.97–NE), median PFS was 5.52 months

Cohort 2: ORR was 13.3% (95% CI, 1.7–40.5), median DOR was 3.75 months (95% CI, 2.04-NE), and median PFS was 4.21 months

	95	
Tovorafenib (TAK-580)	NCT01425008a	1	Relapsed or refractory advanced solid tumors	Total: 149

Cohort 1: targeted therapy-naive BRAF-mutant receiving Q2D in expansion phase (n = 16)

Cohort 2: targeted therapy previously treated BRAF-mutant receiving Q2D in expansion phase (n = 6)

	Safety (n = 149):

32.9% grade ≥3 TRAEs

Most common TRAEs: fatigue (37.6%) and anemia (23.5%)

SCC was reported as TEAE by 1 patient

Efficacy:

For BRAF-mutant tumors, ORR was 50% and 17% for cohorts 1 and 2, respectively

	96,109	
Tovorafenib (TAK-580) ± pimasertib	NCT04985604	1b/2	Recurrent, progressive, or refractory melanoma or other solid tumors (including NSCLC) with mutations in MAPK pathway	168	Phase 1b: Determine safety (AEs), MTD, and RP2D of tovorafenib + other therapies

Phase 2: Efficacy of tovorafenib ± other therapies (ORR)

	110	
HLX208 (BRAF inhibitor)	NCT05065398	2	BRAF and MEK inhibitor-naive BRAFV600-mutant advanced NSCLC	20	ORR	111	
HLX208 + HLX10 (anti-PD-1 antibody)	NCT05641493	1b/2	BRAFV600E-mutant advanced solid tumors (phase 1b) or NSCLC (phase 2) with positive PD-L1 expression (TPS or TC ≥ 1%); BRAF and MEK inhibitor-naive (phase 2)	49	Phase 1b: MTD and DLT

Phase 2: ORR

	112	
AE adverse event, DCR disease control rate, DLT dose-limiting toxicity, DOR duration of response, IC50 half maximal inhibitory concentration, MTD maximum tolerated dose, NE not estimable, NSCLC non-small cell lung cancer, ORR objective response rate, PFS progression-free survival, Q2D once every other day, RP2D recommended phase 2 dose, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, SD stable disease, TC tumor cell, TEAE treatment-emergent AE, TPS tumor proportion score, TRAE treatment-related AE, WT wild type.

aPhase 1 was completed in 2018.

Unmet needs

Brain metastases

Brain metastases (BMs), a common (26% at diagnosis) challenge for patients with metastatic NSCLC, are associated with poor prognosis and quality of life97,98. One study reported that the incidence of baseline BMs in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic NSCLC was significantly lower for class I mutations (9%) than for class II (29%; P = 0.011) or class III (31%; P = 0.007) mutations33. However, this subset of patients has been predominantly excluded from trials of targeted therapies15,16,18. In a trial evaluating vemurafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant advanced NSCLC, median PFS was 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.5–3.9) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.8–7.2) in patients with (n = 26) and without (n = 89) baseline BMs11. In patients enrolled in PHAROS with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC asymptomatic BMs, ORR was 100% (95% CI, 39.8–100.0%) for treatment-naive patients (n = 4) and 0% for previously treated patients (n = 4)18. Better understanding of the epidemiology, risk, impact, and treatment of BMs in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic NSCLC remains an unmet need.

More robust efficacy analysis of patients with BMs has been conducted for BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. In a phase 3 study of patients with BRAFV600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BMs (n = 275), systemic outcomes with dabrafenib plus trametinib were ORR of 41.5% and median PFS of 5.68 months (95% CI, 5.29–6.87)99. Treatment-naive patients had a significantly longer median PFS than previously treated patients (7.23 versus 4.96 months; P = 0.0061). An open-label, multi-cohort, phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma with BMs (n = 125), including the largest cohort (n = 76) with asymptomatic BRAFV600E-mutant BMs and no prior brain-directed therapy100. For the largest cohort, intracranial response rate (IC ORR) was 58% (95% CI, 46–69%), median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.3–7.4), and median OS was 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.7–19.6). The safety profile was consistent with those in previous dabrafenib plus trametinib studies. In a multicenter, retrospective case series investigation, encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment of 24 patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma BMs resulted in IC ORR of 33% and ORR of 21%101. The safety profile was consistent with what was reported in patients with melanoma without BMs.

Conclusion

BRAFV600E is an actionable mutation for metastatic NSCLC with safe and effective treatment options8,16,18. BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies have demonstrated rapid and durable responses in the majority of patients15,16,18. The safety profiles of these combinations are well described, and appropriate therapy management principles should be employed for responding patients. Disease progression is inevitable, as only ~50% of patients with metastatic NSCLC receive a second-line treatment102,103. Therefore, it is prudent to use the most efficacious agents in the first-line setting. Further studies are necessary to determine optimal sequencing methods, understand resistance mechanisms, determine efficacy of treatments for BMs, and develop targeted therapies for non-V600E mutations.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Supplementary information

REPORTING SUMMARY

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41698-024-00552-7.

Acknowledgements

Medical writing support was provided by Mark McCollum, PhD, and Caitlin Cash, PhD, of Nucleus Global and was funded by Pfizer.

Author contributions

D.P., R.E.S., M.V.N., A.V., and E.F.S. contributed to the drafting and revisions of the manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work, and have provided their approval for the final version.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed for this article. Data referenced in this review can be accessed by following resources numbered in the References section.

Competing interests

D.P. reports receiving honoraria from Prime Oncology and PeerVoice; and has had a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, Celgene, MedImmune, BeiGene, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen, Seagen, Takeda, ArriVent, Mirati, Pierre Fabre, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; and has received research funding (institutional financial interest, clinical trials research as principal or co-investigator) from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, Janssen, ArriVent, Mirati, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, and Takeda. R.S. reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, GameOn!, Illumina, OncLive, and Targeted Oncology; and has had a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, GE HealthCare, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis; and has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and AstraZeneca. M.N. reports receiving research funding to institution from Mirati, Novartis, Checkmate, Alaunos, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Genentech, Navire; a consultant or advisory role for Mirati, Merck/MSD, Novartis, Genentech, Sanofi; and other support from Ziopharm Oncology, ApotheCom, Ashfield Healthcare. A.V. reports no conflicts of interest. E.S. reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Merck KGaA, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has had a consulting or advisory role at Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Takeda, Bayer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Nguyen-Ngoc T Bouchaab H Adjei AA Peters S BRAF alterations as therapeutic targets in non-small-cell lung cancer J. Thorac. Oncol. 2015 10 1396 1403 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000644 26301799
2. Owsley J Prevalence of class I-III BRAF mutations among 114,662 cancer patients in a large genomic database Exp. Biol. Med. 2021 246 31 39 10.1177/1535370220959657
3. Davies H Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer Nature 2002 417 949 954 10.1038/nature00766 12068308
4. Wan PTC Mechanism of activation of the RAF-ERK signaling pathway by oncogenic mutations of B-RAF Cell 2004 116 855 867 10.1016/S0092-8674(04)00215-6 15035987
5. Abdayem PA Planchard D Ongoing progress in BRAF-mutated non-small cell lung cancer Clin. Adv. Hematol. Oncol. 2022 20 662 672 36331404
6. Cardarella S Clinical, pathologic, and biologic features associated with BRAF mutations in non-small cell lung cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2013 19 4532 4540 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0657 23833300
7. Sheikine Y BRAF in lung cancers: analysis of patient cases reveals recurrent BRAF mutations, fusions, kinase duplications, and concurrent alterations JCO Precis. Oncol. 2018 2 PO.17.00172 32913992
8. Baik CS Myall NJ Wakelee HA Targeting BRAF-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: from molecular profiling to rationally designed therapy Oncologist 2017 22 786 796 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0458 28487464
9. Barlesi F Routine molecular profiling of cancer: results of a one-year nationwide program at the French Cooperative Thoracic Intergroup (IFCT) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients Lancet 2016 387 1415 1426 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00004-0 26777916
10. Planchard D Dabrafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol. 2016 17 642 650 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00077-2 27080216
11. Mazieres J Vemurafenib in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with BRAFV600 and BRAFnonV600 mutations Ann. Oncol. 2020 31 289 294 10.1016/j.annonc.2019.10.022 31959346
12. Poulikakos PI Zhang C Bollag G Shokat KM Rosen N RAF inhibitors transactivate RAF dimers and ERK signalling in cells with wild-type BRAF Nature 2010 464 427 430 10.1038/nature08902 20179705
13. Hatzivassiliou G RAF inhibitors prime wild-type RAF to activate the MAPK pathway and enhance growth Nature 2010 464 431 435 10.1038/nature08833 20130576
14. Subbiah V Baik C Kirkwood JM Clinical development of BRAF plus MEK inhibitor combinations Trends Cancer 2020 6 797 810 10.1016/j.trecan.2020.05.009 32540454
15. Planchard D Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously treated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol. 2016 17 984 993 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30146-2 27283860
16. Planchard D Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol. 2017 18 1307 1316 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30679-4 28919011
17. Planchard D Phase 2 study of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC: updated 5-year survival rates and genomic analysis J. Thorac. Oncol. 2022 17 103 115 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.08.011 34455067
18. Riely GJ Phase II, open-label study of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2023 14 3700 3711 10.1200/JCO.23.00774
19. Intergroupe Francophone de Cancerlogie Thoracique. ENCOrafenib with Binimetinib in bRAF NSCLC. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04526782 (2020).
20. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Approves Encorafenib with Binimetinib for Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer with a BRAF V600E Mutation. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-encorafenib-binimetinib-metastatic-non-small-cell-lung-cancer-braf-v600e-mutation (2023).
21. Referenced with permission from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer V.5.2023. © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2023. All rights reserved. Accessed [November 29, 2023]. To view the most recent complete version of the guideline, go online to NCCN.org. NCCN makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding their content, use or application and disclaims any responsibility for their application or use in any way. NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®).
22. Hendriks LE Oncogene-addicted metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann. Oncol. 2023 34 339 357 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.12.009 36872130
23. Guisier F Efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC with BRAF, HER2, or MET mutations or RET translocation translocation: GFPC 01-2018: GFPC J. Thorac. Oncol. 2020 15 628 636 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.12.129 31945494
24. Negrao, M. V. et al. Oncogene-specific differences in tumor mutational burden, PD-L1 expression, and outcomes from immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Immunother. Cancer10.1136/jitc-2021-002891 (2021).
25. Yaeger R Corcoran RB Targeting alterations in the RAF-MEK pathway Cancer Discov. 2019 9 329 341 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1321 30770389
26. Marchetti A Clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harboring BRAF mutations J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 29 3574 3579 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.9638 21825258
27. Kinno T Clinicopathological features of nonsmall cell lung carcinomas with BRAF mutations Ann. Oncol. 2014 25 138 142 10.1093/annonc/mdt495 24297085
28. Villaruz LC Clinicopathologic features and outcomes of patients with lung adenocarcinomas harboring BRAF mutations in the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium Cancer 2015 121 448 456 10.1002/cncr.29042 25273224
29. Wolf J Capmatinib in MET exon 14-mutated or MET-amplified non-small-cell lung cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2020 383 944 957 10.1056/NEJMoa2002787 32877583
30. Di Federico A Genomic landscape, clinical features and outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer patients harboring BRAF alterations of distinct functional classes Cancers (Basel) 2022 14 3472 10.3390/cancers14143472 35884534
31. Sakai T Clinicogenomic features and targetable mutations in NSCLCs harboring BRAF non-V600E mutations: a multi-institutional genomic screening study (LC-SCRUM-Asia) J. Thorac. Oncol. 2023 18 1538 1549 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.07.024 37543207
32. Ding X Clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes of Chinese patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and BRAF mutation Cancer Med. 2017 6 555 562 10.1002/cam4.1014 28135039
33. Dagogo-Jack I Impact of BRAF mutation class on disease characteristics and clinical outcomes in BRAF-mutant lung cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2019 25 158 165 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2062 30224342
34. Negrao MV Molecular landscape of BRAF-mutant NSCLC reveals an association between clonality and driver mutations and identifies targetable non-V600 driver mutations J. Thorac. Oncol. 2020 15 1611 1623 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.05.021 32540409
35. Bracht, J. W. P. et al. BRAF mutations classes I, II, and III in NSCLC patients included in the SLLIP trial: the need for a new pre-clinical treatment rationale. Cancers (Basel)10.3390/cancers11091381 (2019).
36. Smiech, M., Leszczynski, P., Kono, H., Wardell, C. & Taniguchi, H. Emerging BRAF mutations in cancer progression and their possible effects on transcriptional networks. Genes (Basel)10.3390/genes11111342 (2020).
37. Roviello G Advances in anti-BRAF therapies for lung cancer Invest. New Drugs 2021 39 879 890 10.1007/s10637-021-01068-8 33474634
38. Yao Z Tumours with class 3 BRAF mutants are sensitive to the inhibition of activated RAS Nature 2017 548 234 238 10.1038/nature23291 28783719
39. Sholl, L., Cooper, W. A., Kerr, K., Tan D. S. W. & Tsao, M. S. (eds) IASLC Atlas of Molecular Testing for Targeted Therapy in Lung Cancer (International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 2023).
40. Lokhandwala PM Clinical mutational profiling and categorization of BRAF mutations in melanomas using next generation sequencing BMC Cancer 2019 19 665 10.1186/s12885-019-5864-1 31277584
41. Odogwu L FDA Approval summary: dabrafenib and trametinib for the treatment of metastatic non‐small cell lung cancers harboring BRAF V600E mutations Oncologist 2018 23 740 745 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0642 29438093
42. Penault-Llorca F Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - part 1: tissue collection and management Virchows Arch. 2022 481 335 350 10.1007/s00428-022-03343-2 35857102
43. Ilie M Current challenges for detection of circulating tumor cells and cell-free circulating nucleic acids, and their characterization in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients. What is the best blood substrate for personalized medicine? Ann. Transl. Med. 2014 2 107 25489581
44. Gow, C. H., Hsieh, M. S., Lin, Y. T., Liu, Y. N. & Shih, J. Y. Validation of immunohistochemistry for the detection of BRAF V600E-mutated lung adenocarcinomas. Cancers (Basel)10.3390/cancers11060866 (2019).
45. Waterhouse DM Tseng WY Espirito JL Robert NJ Understanding contemporary molecular biomarker testing rates and trends for metastatic NSCLC among community oncologists Clin. Lung Cancer 2021 22 e901 e910 10.1016/j.cllc.2021.05.006 34187757
46. Luke JJ Hodi FS Vemurafenib and BRAF inhibition: a new class of treatment for metastatic melanoma Clin. Cancer Res. 2012 18 9 14 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2197 22083257
47. Rheault TR Discovery of dabrafenib: a selective inhibitor of Raf kinases with antitumor activity against B-Raf-driven tumors ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2013 4 358 362 10.1021/ml4000063 24900673
48. Koelblinger P Thuerigen O Dummer R Development of encorafenib for BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma Curr. Opin. Oncol. 2018 30 125 133 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000426 29356698
49. Proietti, I. et al. BRAF inhibitors: molecular targeting and immunomodulatory actions. Cancers (Basel)10.3390/cancers12071823 (2020).
50. Yang H RG7204 (PLX4032), a selective BRAFV600E inhibitor, displays potent antitumor activity in preclinical melanoma models Cancer Res. 2010 70 5518 5527 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0646 20551065
51. King AJ Dabrafenib; preclinical characterization, increased efficacy when combined with trametinib, while BRAF/MEK tool combination reduced skin lesions PLoS ONE 2013 8 e67583 10.1371/journal.pone.0067583 23844038
52. Gentilcore G Effect of dabrafenib on melanoma cell lines harbouring the BRAF V600/R mutations BMC Cancer 2013 13 17 10.1186/1471-2407-13-17 23317446
53. Chapman, P. B. et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2507–2516 (2011).
54. Kopetz S Phase II pilot study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 33 4032 4038 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.2497 26460303
55. Hyman DM Vemurafenib in multiple nonmelanoma cancers with BRAF V600 mutations N. Engl. J. Med. 2015 373 726 736 10.1056/NEJMoa1502309 26287849
56. Ascierto PA Phase II trial (BREAK-2) of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (GSK2118436) in patients with metastatic melanoma J. Clin. Oncol. 2013 31 3205 3211 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.8691 23918947
57. Delord JP Phase I dose-escalation and -expansion study of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib (LGX818) in metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma Clin. Cancer Res. 2017 23 5339 5348 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2923 28611198
58. Falchook GS Dabrafenib in patients with melanoma, untreated brain metastases, and other solid tumours: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial Lancet 2012 379 1893 1901 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60398-5 22608338
59. Gomez-Roca, C. A. et al. Encorafenib (Lgx818), an oral Braf inhibitor, in patients (Pts) with Braf V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (Mcrc): results of dose expansion in an open-label, phase 1 study. Ann. Oncol. 10.1093/annonc/mdu333.38 (2014).
60. Tabernero J Encorafenib plus cetuximab as new standard of care for previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: updated survival results and subgroup analyses from the BEACON study J. Clin. Oncol 2021 39 273 284 10.1200/JCO.20.02088 33503393
61. Ortiz-Cuaran S Circulating tumor DNA genomics reveals potential mechanisms of resistance to BRAF-targeted therapies in BRAF-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients Clin. Cancer Res. 2020 26 6242 6253 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-1037 32859654
62. Long GV Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma N. Engl. J. Med. 2014 371 1877 1888 10.1056/NEJMoa1406037 25265492
63. Ascierto PA 5-Year outcomes with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma: extended follow-up of the coBRIM study Clin. Cancer Res. 2021 27 5225 5235 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0809 34158360
64. Dummer R COLUMBUS 5-year update: a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma J. Clin. Oncol. 2022 40 4178 4188 10.1200/JCO.21.02659 35862871
65. Subbiah V Dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAFV600E-mutated rare cancers: the phase 2 ROAR trial Nat. Med. 2023 29 1103 1112 10.1038/s41591-023-02321-8 37059834
66. Subbiah V Efficacy of vemurafenib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with BRAD V600 mutation: an open label, single-arm cohort of the histology-independent VE-BASKET study JCO Precis. Oncol. 2019 3 18.00266
67. Auliac, J.-B. et al. Efficacy of dabrafenib plus trametinib combination in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant NSCLC in real-world setting: GFPC 01-2019. Cancers10.3390/cancers12123608 (2020).
68. Johnson, B. E. et al. Clinical outcomes with dabrafenib plus trametinib in a clinical trial versus real-world standard of care in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced NSCLC. JTO Clin. Res. Rep. 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2022.100324 (2022).
69. Qu J Clinical characteristics, co-mutations, and treatment outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with the BRAF-V600E mutation Front. Oncol. 2022 12 911303 10.3389/fonc.2022.911303 35814395
70. Niu J BRAF mutation classes and co-occurring mutations in NSCLC J. Clin. Oncol. 2022 40 9083 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.9083
71. Facchinetti F Molecular mechanisms of resistance to BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAFV600E non-small cell lung cancer Eur. J. Cancer 2020 132 211 223 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.03.025 32388065
72. Vaishnavi A Transposon mutagenesis reveals RBMS3 silencing as a promoter of malignant progression of BRAFV600E-driven lung tumorigenesis Cancer Res. 2022 82 4261 4273 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-3214 36112789
73. Villanueva J Vultur A Herlyn M Resistance to BRAF inhibitors: unraveling mechanisms and future treatment options Cancer Res 2011 71 7137 7140 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-1243 22131348
74. Lin L Mapping the molecular determinants of BRAF oncogene dependence in human lung cancer Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014 111 E748 757 10.1073/pnas.1320956111 24550319
75. Nazarian R Melanomas acquire resistance to B-RAF(V600E) inhibition by RTK or N-RAS upregulation Nature 2010 468 973 977 10.1038/nature09626 21107323
76. Dudnik E BRAF mutant lung cancer: programmed death ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, microsatellite instability status, and response to immune check-point inhibitors J. Thorac. Oncol. 2018 13 1128 1137 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.04.024 29723688
77. Mazieres J Immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with advanced lung cancer and oncogenic driver alterations: results from the IMMUNOTARGET registry Ann. Oncol. 2019 30 1321 1328 10.1093/annonc/mdz167 31125062
78. Pai-Scherf L FDA approval summary: pembrolizumab for treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: first-line therapy and beyond Oncologist 2017 22 1392 1399 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0078 28835513
79. Reck M Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2016 375 1823 1833 10.1056/NEJMoa1606774 27718847
80. Shields MD Marin-Acevedo JA Pellini B Immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a decade of progress Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2021 41 1 23 33979196
81. Gandhi L Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 378 2078 2092 10.1056/NEJMoa1801005 29658856
82. Wang H Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer harboring BRAF mutations Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 2023 12 219 229 10.21037/tlcr-22-613 36895926
83. Li H Tumor immune microenvironment and immunotherapy efficacy in BRAF mutation non-small-cell lung cancer Cell Death Dis. 2022 13 1064 10.1038/s41419-022-05510-4 36543792
84. Hellmann MD Phase Ib study of atezolizumab combined with cobimetinib in patients with solid tumors Ann. Oncol. 2019 30 1134 1142 10.1093/annonc/mdz113 30918950
85. University Health Network. Study of Binimetinib in Combination with Pembrolizumab in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03991819?cond=NSCLC&term=binimetinib%20pembrolizumab&rank=1 (2019).
86. Theriau CF Abstract CT206: a phase I study of binimetinib, a MEK inhibitor, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) Cancer Res. 2023 83 CT206 CT206 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2023-CT206
87. Zimmer L Encorafenib, binimetinib plus pembrolizumab triplet therapy in patients with advanced BRAFV600 mutant melanoma: safety and tolerability results from the phase I IMMU-TARGET trial Eur. J. Cancer 2021 158 72 84 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.09.011 34655839
88. Ferrucci PF KEYNOTE-022 part 3: a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 study of pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib in BRAF-mutant melanoma J. Immunother. Cancer 2020 8 e001806 10.1136/jitc-2020-001806 33361337
89. Burton EM Safety and efficacy of TRIplet combination of nivolumab (N) with dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) [TRIDeNT] in patients (pts) with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma (MM): a single center phase II study Ann. Oncol. 2019 30 v534 v535 10.1093/annonc/mdz255.002
90. Liu Y Zhang X Wang G Cui X Triple combination therapy with PD-1/PD-L1, BRAF, and MEK inhibitor for stage III-IV melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis Front. Oncol. 2021 11 693655 10.3389/fonc.2021.693655 34195094
91. Gunderwala AY Nimbvikar AA Cope NJ Li Z Wang Z Development of allosteric BRAF peptide inhibitors targeting the dimer interface of BRAF ACS Chem. Biol. 2019 14 1471 1480 10.1021/acschembio.9b00191 31243962
92. Cook FA Cook SJ Inhibition of RAF dimers: it takes two to tango Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2021 49 237 251 10.1042/BST20200485 33367512
93. Tkacik E Structure and RAF family kinase isoform selectivity of type II RAF inhibitors tovorafenib and naporafenib J. Biol. Chem. 2023 299 104634 10.1016/j.jbc.2023.104634 36963492
94. Yao Z RAF inhibitor PLX8394 selectively disrupts BRAF dimers and RAS-independent BRAF-mutant-driven signaling Nat. Med. 2019 25 284 291 10.1038/s41591-018-0274-5 30559419
95. de Braud F Initial evidence for the efficacy of naporafenib in combination with trametinib in NRAS-mutant melanoma: results from the expansion arm of a phase Ib, open-label study J. Clin. Oncol. 2023 41 2651 2660 10.1200/JCO.22.02018 36947734
96. Rasco DW Phase 1 study of the pan-RAF inhibitor tovorafenib in patients with advanced solid tumors followed by dose expansion in patients with metastatic melanoma Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2023 92 15 28 10.1007/s00280-023-04544-5 37219686
97. Ali A Goffin JR Arnold A Ellis PM Survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer after a diagnosis of brain metastases Curr. Oncol. 2013 20 e300 e306 10.3747/co.20.1481 23904768
98. Waqar SN Non-small-cell lung cancer with brain metastasis at presentation Clin. Lung Cancer 2018 19 e373 e379 10.1016/j.cllc.2018.01.007 29526531
99. Dutriaux C An open label, non-randomised, phase IIIb study of trametinib in combination with dabrafenib in patients with unresectable (stage III) or distant metastatic (stage IV) BRAF V600-mutant melanoma: A subgroup analysis of patients with brain metastases Eur. J. Cancer 2022 175 254 262 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.035 36170791
100. Davies MA Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma brain metastases (COMBI-MB): a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol. 2017 18 863 873 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30429-1 28592387
101. Holbrook K Intracranial antitumor activity with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with melanoma brain metastases: a case series Cancer 2020 126 523 530 10.1002/cncr.32547 31658370
102. Reinmuth N Treatment and outcome of patients with metastatic NSCLC: a retrospective institution analysis of 493 patients Respir. Res. 2013 14 139 10.1186/1465-9921-14-139 24351122
103. Simeone JC Nordstrom BL Patel K Klein AB Treatment patterns and overall survival in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in a real-world, US setting Future Oncol. 2019 15 3491 3502 10.2217/fon-2019-0348 31497994
104. Tan I Therapeutic outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer with BRAF mutations: a single institution, retrospective cohort study Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 2019 8 258 267 10.21037/tlcr.2019.04.03 31367539
105. Gibson AJW Real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness of targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor-based systemic therapy in BRAF mutation-positive NSCLC JTO Clin. Res. Rep. 2023 4 100460 36915629
106. Franovic A The next-generation pan-RAF inhibitor, KIN-2787, is active in class II and class III BRAF mutant models J Clin Oncol 2021 39 3116 3116 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.3116
107. Kinnate Biopharma. A Study to Evaluate KIN-2787 in Participants with BRAF and/or NRAS Mutation Positive Solid Tumors. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04913285?cond=NCT04913285&rank=1 (2021).
108. Novartis Pharmaceuticals. A Phase Ib Study of LXH254-Centric Combinations in NSCLC or Melanoma. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02974725 (2016).
109. Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc. Study of MLN2480 in Participants with Relapses Or Refractory Solid Tumors Followed by a Dose Expansion in Participants with Metastatic Melanoma. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01425008 (2011).
110. Day One Biopharmaceuticals Inc. Tovorafenib (DAY101) Monotherapy or in Combination with Other Therapies for Patients with Melanoma and Other Solid Tumors. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04985604?term=tovorafenib&cond=Nsclc&draw=2&rank=1 (2021).
111. Shanghai Henlius Biotech. A Phase II Clinical Trial to Evaluate HLX208 in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05065398?term=hlx-208&cond=braf&draw=2&rank=9 (2021).
112. Shanghai Henlius Biotech. A Phase Ib/II Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of HLX208+HLX10 in NSCLC with BRAF V600E Mutation. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05641493?term=braf&recrs=abdef&type=Intr&cond=Non-small+Cell+Lung+Cancer&draw=2 (2022).
