BRAF: which options do we have for these patients in second line?

18 / 22

BRAF INHIBITION IN ROUTINARY mCRC
OS PFS
Retrospective evaluation of a limited dataset can only be hypothesis generating
BRAF/plcbo
BRAF/afli
Adapted from Wirapati P, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35 (suppl; abstr 3538).
/
/ / / / /
/
/ /
/
/
/ / /
//
/
/ / / / / / / /
/
/
/
/
/ / /
/
// // /
// / / //
/ /
/
/ /
// /
// / // /
// // /
/
/
/
/
// /
/ / / /
/
/ / / / / //
/
/
/ /
/
/ /
/ /
/
/ /
/ //
/ // /
/ // /
/ / / / /
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
events
19
11
months
median surv
5.5 [ 3.5,10.6]
10.3 [ 5.3, NA]
number at risk:
20 12 5 2 1
16 12 8 4
BRAF/afli vs BRAF/plcbo: HR = 0.416 [0.158, 1.09] p = 0.076
A)
three way/arm
BRAF/plcbo
BRAF/afli
OS /
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/ / /
/
/ / // / / /
// / /
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
/ / /
/
/
/
/
/ / / /
/
/
/
/ /
/ / / /
/
/ / / /
/ /
/ /
/
/
/ /
/
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
PFS
events:
17
11
median surv:
2.2 [ 1.4, 8.3]
5.5 [ 2.7, NA]
number at risk:
20 4 2 1
16 8 2 1
BRAF/afli vs BRAF/plcbo: HR = 0.589 [0.22, 1.58] p = 0.29
B)
three way/arm
BRAF/plcbo
BRAF/afli
BRAF/plcbo
BRAF/afli
months