Trial reportESMO open2025
Early switch from run-in with targeted to immunotherapy in advanced BRAF
Trial report in ESMO open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors: exploring immunomodulatory effects on various immune cell types in cancer.Cancer cell international · 2026Review
- Pathway-Specific Therapeutic Modulation of Melanoma: Small-Molecule Inhibition of BRAF-MEK and KIT Signaling in Contemporary Precision Oncology with a Special Focus on Vemurafenib, Trametinib, and Imatinib.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma brain metastases: Results from the BECARE (GEM-2002) trial.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal sequencing of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies (TTs) in BRAF PATIENTS AND
methodsThe 1 : 1 randomised phase II ImmunoCobiVem trial compared-after a 3-month run-in phase with vemurafenib (VEM, 960 mg twice daily) and cobimetinib (COB, 60 mg daily days 21-28, q4w)-continuous VEM + COB until disease progression (PD1) and second-line atezolizumab (ATEZO, 1200 mg, q3w) in arm A versus early switch to ATEZO after run-in, followed by crossover to VEM + COB at PD1, in arm B. PFS from the start of run-in until PD1 was the primary endpoint (PFS1); secondary efficacy endpoints were OS, overall PFS (PFS2) and PFS3 (time from PD1 to PD after crossover, i.e. PD2) and best overall response rates (BORRs).
resultsThe final analysis (median follow-up 57.0 months, interquartile range 22.7-63.0 months) confirmed longer PFS1 for continuous TT [arm A (69 patients) versus arm B (early switch, 66 patients); hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.91, P = 0.006], but early switch to ICIs resulted in better long-term OS [4- and 5-year landmark OS 42% (95% CI 29% to 55%) and 40% (95% CI 27% to 53%) for arm A, and 53% (95% CI 38% to 65%) and 45% (95% CI 31% to 58%) for arm B; descriptive HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.71-1.91]. Absolute BORRs were 81% and 89%, respectively, with 15 (22%) and 19 (29%) patients achieving a complete response at least once along each sequence. At crossover, TT retreatment (arm B) resulted in higher PFS3 than second-line ICI (arm A).
conclusionsEarly switch to ICIs after TT run-in (arm B) led to an improved, although not statistically significant, 4- and 5-year landmark OS compared with arm A. No subgroups were identified for which a TT run-in provided clinical benefit. The number of patients developing brain metastasis and the time to brain metastasis were not improved by an early TT to ICI switch.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.