Comparative efficacy and safety of second- and later-line BRAF-targeted regimens in BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Muhammad Arsalan, F N U Sawaira, Irtaza Hassan et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of second- and later-line BRAF-targeted regimens in adults with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. Four trials involving 922 patients and nine treatment arms were included. All four experimental regimens improved progression-free survival versus irinotecan plus cetuximab; encorafenib plus cetuximab plus alpelisib ranked highest (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.71). For overall survival, significant benefits were reported only with encorafenib plus binimetinib plus cetuximab and encorafenib plus cetuximab. No significant difference between those regimens was detected on either endpoint.
Key findings
- All four experimental regimens significantly improved progression-free survival versus irinotecan plus cetuximab.
- Encorafenib plus cetuximab plus alpelisib ranked highest for progression-free survival (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.71; P-score 0.789).
- Only encorafenib plus binimetinib plus cetuximab (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.69) and encorafenib plus cetuximab (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.76) significantly improved overall survival.
- Encorafenib plus cetuximab was the only encorafenib-based regimen with significantly fewer grade ≥ 3 adverse events than irinotecan plus cetuximab (odds ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.96).
Why it matters
The analysis brings together comparative evidence for later-line targeted regimens in a molecularly defined population where direct head-to-head trials are lacking. It suggests that stronger progression-free survival ranking does not necessarily translate into demonstrated overall-survival benefit, and that tolerability may differ. These distinctions help frame treatment comparisons while highlighting uncertainty about the added value of more intensive combinations.
What to keep in mind
The network meta-analysis included only four trials, and comparisons were indirect rather than head-to-head. The authors state that the incremental value of more intensive regimens requires confirmation in adequately powered trials.