DABRAFENIB IN BRAF V600E-POSITIVE SOLID TUMORS: RESISTANCE, CLINICAL APPLICATIONS, AND DRUG-DELIVERY STRATEGIES

Fatemeh  Dodangeh; Sara  Azizi; Maryam  Ebrahimi; Aziz  Eftekhari; Mahsa  Javan

doi:10.28942/atuj.v6i3y2026.158

Abstract

Dabrafenib, particularly in combination with trametinib, is an established targeted therapy for several BRAF V600E-positive solid tumors, although the magnitude and durability of response vary considerably across tumor types. This review summarizes the molecular rationale, clinical applications, resistance mechanisms, pharmacokinetic limitations, and emerging delivery strategies of dabrafenib-based therapy. Treatment outcome is influenced not only by BRAF V600E status but also by tumor lineage, co-occurring genomic alterations, receptor tyrosine kinase feedback, microenvironmental signaling, and lesion-level drug exposure. Resistance develops through MAPK reactivation, PI3K/AKT bypass signaling, cellular plasticity, tumor heterogeneity, stromal protection, and pharmacological underexposure. Dabrafenib efficacy is further constrained by pH-dependent solubility, food-sensitive absorption, CYP-mediated metabolism, autoinduction, drug interactions, limited brain distribution, and heterogeneous intratumoral penetration. Solid-state modification, nanostructured formulations, targeted nanocarriers, locoregional administration, and coordinated dabrafenib–trametinib delivery have shown preclinical promise, but evidence of superiority over standard oral therapy remains limited. Clinical findings across melanoma, lung, thyroid, biliary tract, colorectal, and central nervous system tumors indicate that BRAF V600E is highly actionable but insufficient as a standalone predictor of benefit. Treatment optimization therefore requires a tumor-specific approach integrating molecular selection, resistance profiling, and lesion-level drug exposure.

Full article

Introduction BRAF V600E is one of the most clinically actionable oncogenic alterations in solid tumors [1]. This mutation constitutively activates the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signaling pathway, leading to sustained proliferative and survival signaling [2]. Although BRAF V600E was initially established as a major therapeutic target in melanoma, its clinical relevance has expanded to several non-melanoma solid tumors, including non-small-cell lung cancer, anaplastic thyroid cancer, pediatric low-grade glioma, biliary tract cancer, and other rare BRAF V600E-positive malignancies [3-6]. Dabrafenib is a selective small-molecule inhibitor of mutant BRAF, with particular activity against BRAF V600-driven signaling [4]. In combination with the MEK inhibitor trametinib, dabrafenib provides vertical inhibition of the MAPK pathway and has become an important targeted therapeutic strategy for BRAF V600E-positive tumors [7]. The clinical value of this combination is reflected by its expansion from melanoma to tissue-agnostic treatment of selected BRAF V600E-positive advanced solid tumors [4, 5]. However, the presence of BRAF V600E alone does not guarantee uniform therapeutic benefit across tumor types. Increasing evidence indicates that response to dabrafenib-based therapy is shaped by tumor lineage, BRAF mutation class, co-occurring genomic alterations, receptor tyrosine kinase feedback, tumor microenvironment, and tissue-specific pharmacological barriers [3, 8]. Therefore, BRAF V600E should be considered a powerful but incomplete predictor of response. A major limitation of dabrafenib-based therapy is the emergence of intrinsic or acquired resistance [9]. Tumors may escape treatment through MAPK pathway reactivation [10], PI3K/AKT-mediated bypass signaling [11], EGFR feedback activation [12], cell-cycle deregulation [13], tumor heterogeneity [14],immune-microenvironmental remodeling [15], and insufficient drug exposure at specific tumor sites.

In addition, pharmacokinetic and formulation-related challenges, including pH-dependent solubility, variable oral absorption, drug-drug interactions, limited tumor penetration, and blood-brain barrier restrictions, may further limit the durability of response in solid tumors [16, 17]. This review aims to integrate the molecular pharmacology, clinical relevance, resistance mechanisms, pharmacokinetic limitations, and emerging drug-delivery strategies of dabrafenib-based therapy in BRAF V600E-positive solid tumors. Unlike reviews focused mainly on melanoma or BRAF/MEK inhibition alone, this article emphasizes the concept that effective dabrafenib therapy requires a context-guided approach in which tumor biology, resistance evolution, tissue-delivery barriers, and formulation design are considered together. This perspective may help define future strategies for improving the therapeutic performance of dabrafenib beyond conventional targeted therapy.

Molecular Basis of BRAF Signaling and Dabrafenib-Based Therapy 2.1. The RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK Signaling Pathway The RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK cascade, commonly referred to as the canonical MAPK/ERK pathway, is a central signaling network that regulates cell proliferation, differentiation, survival, and migration [18]. Under physiological conditions, extracellular growth factors activate receptor tyrosine kinases, leading to the recruitment of adaptor proteins and conversion of RAS to its active GTP-bound state [19]. RAS-GTP subsequently recruits RAF kinases, including ARAF, BRAF, and CRAF, to the plasma membrane, where conformational rearrangement and RAF dimerization promote kinase activation [20]. Activated RAF phosphorylates MEK1/2, which in turn activates ERK1/2. ERK then translocates to the nucleus and regulates gene-expression programs involved in cell-cycle progression, differentiation, and survival. Persistent dysregulation of this cascade can promote malignant transformation [21, 22]. Among RAF-family members, BRAF exhibits the highest intrinsic kinase activity and is the RAF isoform most frequently affected by oncogenic mutations [23]. Oncogenic BRAF activation can uncouple MAPK signaling from normal upstream control, producing sustained pathway output that supports uncontrolled tumor-cell proliferation and survival. BRAF V600E is the most prevalent activating BRAF alteration and can function as a dominant oncogenic driver across multiple solid-tumor lineages [3, 8, 24].

RAF proteins contain three conserved regions: CR1, which includes the RAS-binding and cysteine-rich domains; CR2, which contains regulatory phosphorylation sites; and CR3, which comprises the catalytic kinase domain, including the glycine-rich P-loop and activation segment [21]. RAF signaling is strongly influenced by kinase-domain conformation and homo- or heterodimerization, including formation of BRAF–CRAF dimers [21, 23, 25]. In the autoinhibited state, a 14-3-3 dimer interacts with phosphorylated regulatory sites in BRAF and stabilizes a closed conformation [26]. Structural studies further indicate that coordinated interactions among the BRAF cysteine-rich domain, kinase domain, MEK1, and 14-3-3 contribute to maintenance of this inactive state [21, 27]. These structural features help explain why RAF dimerization, conformational state, and cellular context strongly influence sensitivity to RAF inhibitors.

2.2. BRAF Mutation Classes: Class I, Class II, and Class III BRAF mutations are commonly classified into three functional classes according to their intrinsic kinase activity, dependence on upstream RAS signaling, and requirement for RAF dimerization. This classification has important therapeutic implications because the three classes differ substantially in their signaling mechanisms and sensitivity to RAF-targeted therapies [3, 8, 25, 28]. Class I mutations comprise substitutions at codon V600, particularly V600E and V600K. These alterations generate highly active BRAF monomers that signal independently of upstream RAS activation and do not require RAF dimerization. Sustained ERK activation imposes negative feedback on RAS, resulting in relatively low RAS-GTP activity in class I BRAF-mutant tumors [29]. Their monomeric and RAS-independent signaling explains why class I mutants are the most sensitive to approved BRAF inhibitors such as dabrafenib, particularly when BRAF inhibition is combined with downstream MEK inhibition [3, 8, 25]. Class II mutations are activating non-V600 alterations that signal as constitutively active, RAS-independent RAF dimers. They include selected substitutions involving G469, L597, and K601, as well as many BRAF fusions [29]. Because conventional BRAF V600-selective inhibitors more effectively inhibit monomeric BRAF than RAF dimers, class II alterations generally show limited sensitivity to these agents and may require strategies targeting RAF dimers or downstream MEK–ERK signaling [3, 8, 25, 30]. In contrast, class III mutations have impaired or absent intrinsic kinase activity and depend on upstream RAS activation [31]. These mutants enhance signaling through interactions with RAS-GTP and CRAF-containing dimers, with RAS activation arising from receptor tyrosine kinase signaling, activating RAS alterations, NF1 loss, or other upstream events [32]. Consequently, class III tumors are generally unsuitable for conventional BRAF V600-selective inhibitor monotherapy, and their treatment must be guided by the upstream driver, tumor lineage, and broader genomic context[3, 8, 28].

2.3. Mechanistic Basis of Dabrafenib and Trametinib Combination Therapy Dabrafenib is primarily active against class I BRAF V600 alterations, particularly V600E and V600K, which generate constitutively active, RAS-independent BRAF monomers [3, 8, 24, 33]. In vitro, dabrafenib inhibits BRAF V600E, BRAF V600K, and BRAF V600D with IC₅₀ values of 0.65, 0.50, and 1.84 nM, respectively, while inhibiting wild-type BRAF and CRAF at higher concentrations, with corresponding IC₅₀ values of 3.2 and 5.0 nM [34]. In BRAF V600-mutant cells, inhibition of mutant BRAF reduces downstream MEK–ERK signaling and suppresses MAPK-dependent tumor-cell proliferation. Consistently, dabrafenib inhibits the growth of BRAF V600 mutation-positive tumors in both in vitro and in vivo models [3, 8, 24, 34]. The pharmacological effects of RAF inhibitors depend strongly on mutation status and RAF dimerization. Whereas dabrafenib suppresses MAPK signaling in BRAF V600-mutant cells, RAF inhibition in BRAF wild-type cells with elevated RAS activity may promote RAF dimerization and transactivation, resulting in paradoxical MEK–ERK pathway activation [8, 21]. This context-dependent activity reinforces the requirement for accurate identification of the BRAF variant and explains why dabrafenib should not be used in molecularly unselected BRAF wild-type or RAS-activated tumors.

Trametinib is a reversible allosteric inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2 activation and kinase activity, thereby limiting downstream ERK signaling [35-38]. Combining trametinib with dabrafenib therefore provides vertical inhibition of two sequential nodes of the RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK cascade. This dual blockade suppresses residual or recovering MEK–ERK signaling more effectively than BRAF inhibition alone and delays MAPK-pathway reactivation. Preclinical studies demonstrated greater growth inhibition in BRAF V600 mutation-positive tumor-cell lines and more prolonged tumor-growth suppression in xenograft models with the combination than with either drug alone [34, 38]. Clinical studies in BRAF V600-mutant melanoma subsequently showed that dabrafenib plus trametinib improved disease control and delayed resistance compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy, while reducing cutaneous hyperproliferative toxicities associated with paradoxical MAPK activation [36, 37].

The mechanistic rationale for this combination is strongest in class I BRAF V600-driven tumors and should not be generalized to all BRAF alterations [39]. Class II mutations signal through RAF dimers, whereas class III mutations depend on upstream RAS or receptor tyrosine kinase activity and CRAF-containing dimers [40]. Accordingly, the therapeutic relevance of dabrafenib–trametinib therapy must be interpreted according to the exact BRAF variant, functional mutation class, and tumor context [3, 8, 25, 28]. The molecular organization of BRAF signaling, the functional classification of BRAF alterations, and the mechanistic rationale for combined dabrafenib–trametinib therapy are summarized in Figure 1.

Clinical Applications of Dabrafenib-Based Therapy Across Solid Tumors Dabrafenib-based therapy has expanded from melanoma to several BRAF V600E-positive solid tumors, particularly when combined with trametinib [3, 8, 41]. However, clinical benefit varies across tumor types because response is influenced by tumor lineage, co-occurring alterations, feedback signaling, the tumor microenvironment, and tissue-specific drug accessibility [3, 5]. As illustrated in Figure 2, the clinical performance of dabrafenib-based therapy is determined by the interaction between BRAF dependency and tumor-specific factors, including lineage, mutation class, co-occurring alterations, feedback signaling, and drug accessibility.

3.1. Established Clinical Applications: Melanoma and Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Melanoma provided the initial clinical evidence supporting BRAF-targeted therapy [42]. Dabrafenib monotherapy improved outcomes compared with dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic melanoma [43]. However, the rapid emergence of MAPK-pathway reactivation limited the durability of monotherapy. Subsequent phase III studies demonstrated that combining dabrafenib with trametinib improved disease control and clinical outcomes compared with single-agent BRAF inhibition, establishing dual BRAF/MEK inhibition as a standard treatment for BRAF V600-mutant melanoma [44, 45]. In non-small-cell lung cancer, BRAF V600E represents a clinically actionable but uncommon molecular subgroup [46]. Phase II studies showed that dabrafenib plus trametinib produced objective response rates of approximately 63–64% in both previously treated and treatment-naive patients with metastatic BRAF V600E-positive NSCLC [3, 47]. These findings established dabrafenib plus trametinib as an important targeted option for BRAF V600E-mutant NSCLC. However, clinical evidence in NSCLC is best established for class I BRAF V600E disease, because non-V600 BRAF alterations exhibit distinct signaling mechanisms and variable sensitivity to conventional BRAF inhibitor [3, 6, 48, 49].

3.2. Thyroid, Biliary Tract, and Other Rare Solid Tumors BRAF V600E has important therapeutic implications in thyroid cancer. In differentiated thyroid cancer, sustained MAPK activation suppresses thyroid-specific genes involved in iodine uptake and contributes to radioactive iodine resistance [1, 50]. BRAF/MEK inhibition may partially restore iodine avidity and enable redifferentiation in selected patients with BRAF-mutant radioactive iodine-refractory disease [51]. Dabrafenib plus trametinib has also demonstrated clinically meaningful activity in BRAF V600E-mutant anaplastic thyroid carcinoma, an aggressive malignancy with historically limited treatment options [5, 52]. These findings support routine molecular testing in advanced thyroid tumors and illustrate how the clinical role of BRAF inhibition may differ according to histological subtype [53]. Among other rare solid tumors, biliary tract cancer represents an important application of dabrafenib-based therapy [54]. In the ROAR basket trial, dabrafenib plus trametinib produced meaningful responses in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant biliary tract cancer [5]. Its activity has also been reported across selected rare BRAF V600E-positive tumors, although interpretation remains limited by small and heterogeneous patient cohorts [55]. These data support broad molecular profiling in rare cancers for which standard therapeutic options are limited [5].

3.3. Colorectal Cancer as a Model of Tumor-Context Dependence BRAF V600E-mutant colorectal cancer illustrates why the presence of an actionable mutation does not necessarily predict uniform sensitivity to BRAF inhibition across tumor types [55]. Unlike melanoma, BRAF inhibitor monotherapy has limited activity in colorectal cancer because suppression of mutant BRAF rapidly relieves MAPK-dependent negative feedback and promotes EGFR-mediated reactivation of RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK signaling [3, 56]. Consequently, effective treatment requires simultaneous blockade of BRAF and EGFR. The BEACON CRC trial demonstrated that encorafenib plus cetuximab improved clinical outcomes in previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer, establishing combined BRAF/EGFR inhibition as a standard therapeutic strategy [56-58].

3.4. CNS Tumors and Pediatric Low-Grade Glioma BRAF alterations occur in several pediatric and adult central nervous system tumors, including pediatric low-grade glioma, ganglioglioma, pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, and selected high-grade gliomas [55]. However, therapeutic sensitivity depends on the exact alteration because BRAF V600 mutations, BRAF fusions, and other non-V600 variants differ substantially in their signaling biology and response to RAF-targeted therapy [3, 59]. Dabrafenib plus trametinib has demonstrated clinically meaningful activity in BRAF V600E-positive low- and high-grade gliomas, supporting its use in molecularly selected CNS tumors [5]. The CNS setting nevertheless presents an important pharmacological challenge. Blood–brain barrier integrity, transporter-mediated drug efflux, tumor location, and heterogeneous vascular permeability may restrict intracranial and intratumoral exposure despite adequate systemic concentrations [60, 61]. These limitations help explain the growing development of brain-penetrant RAF inhibitors and highlight the need for delivery strategies capable of improving drug distribution within CNS tumors [3, 59]. Thus, CNS tumors provide a direct link between molecular sensitivity to dabrafenib and the tissue-specific barriers that may limit durable therapeutic response [4]. The clinical relevance of dabrafenib-based therapy and the major tumor-context-specific factors that shape or limit its use across selected BRAF V600E-positive solid tumors are summarized in Table 1. Collectively, these clinical experiences demonstrate that BRAF V600E is a broadly actionable molecular target, but the therapeutic performance of dabrafenib-based therapy remains strongly influenced by tumor lineage, feedback signaling, co-occurring alterations, and tissue-specific drug accessibility. Accordingly, treatment selection should integrate BRAF mutation status with the biological and pharmacological context of each tumor.

Pharmacokinetic and Formulation Challenges Although dabrafenib has high molecular potency and substantial oral bioavailability after a single dose, its clinical exposure is influenced by pH-dependent solubility, formulation and food effects, time-dependent pharmacokinetics, drug–drug interactions, and restricted distribution into selected tumor compartments. These factors may produce variable systemic exposure or inadequate drug concentrations at pharmacologically protected sites, particularly within the central nervous system and poorly penetrated tumor regions [70-75]. Accordingly, the principal formulation challenge is not simply to increase total exposure, but to achieve reproducible and site-appropriate drug availability.

4.1. Oral Biopharmaceutical Limitations: Solubility, Formulation, and Food Effects Dabrafenib mesylate is a weakly basic compound with strongly pH-dependent aqueous solubility. According to the prescribing information, it is very slightly soluble at pH 1 and practically insoluble above pH 4. Passage from the acidic stomach to the higher-pH intestinal environment may therefore reduce drug solubility and promote precipitation from a transiently supersaturated state, limiting the fraction that remains available for absorption [34, 76, 77]. Dabrafenib also exhibits a complex solid-state landscape comprising polymorphs, hydrates, perhydrates, and multiple solvates. Consequently, crystal form and solid-state stability may substantially influence dissolution behavior and formulation performance [70, 71]. Clinical formulation studies confirm that oral exposure is sensitive to apparently conventional formulation variables. In patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors, particle size, capsule-shell composition, and prandial state altered the relative bioavailability of dabrafenib. Hypromellose capsules produced higher exposure than gelatin capsules, whereas the nonmicronized drug substance unexpectedly showed greater bioavailability than the micronized form [72]. These findings indicate that particle-size reduction does not necessarily improve in vivo exposure when dissolution, supersaturation, capsule disintegration, and precipitation interact dynamically. They also demonstrate that conventional in vitro dissolution results may not always predict clinical performance. Food significantly reduces and delays dabrafenib absorption. Administration with a high-fat meal decreases C_max by approximately 51% and AUC by 31% and delays T_max relative to fasting conditions; consequently, dabrafenib should be administered at least 1 h before or 2 h after food [34, 78, 79]. These findings support oral formulations that maintain dabrafenib in a dissolved or supersaturated state and reduce precipitation. Solid-form engineering, polymers, amorphous systems, and nanocarriers may improve exposure, but their clinical value requires in vivo validation [70, 71, 80].

4.2. Metabolism, Autoinduction, and Drug–Drug Interactions Dabrafenib undergoes extensive oxidative metabolism, primarily through CYP2C8 and CYP3A4. Hydroxy-dabrafenib is subsequently converted to carboxy-dabrafenib, which can undergo decarboxylation to form desmethyl-dabrafenib [73, 74]. Fecal excretion is the major elimination route, accounting for approximately 71% of the administered radioactive dose, whereas urinary recovery accounts for approximately 23% and consists of metabolites rather than unchanged dabrafenib. Hydroxy-dabrafenib and desmethyl-dabrafenib retain pharmacological activity and may contribute to the overall clinical effects of treatment [34, 73, 74]. A distinctive pharmacokinetic property of dabrafenib is time-dependent autoinduction. Repeated administration increases apparent clearance, resulting in lower-than-expected accumulation and less-than-dose-proportional exposure at steady state. Population pharmacokinetic analyses estimate an induction half-life of approximately 67 h, with steady state reached within about 14 days [73, 81]. Consequently, exposure measured after an initial dose may not represent the concentrations achieved during chronic twice-daily therapy. Dabrafenib acts as both a substrate and an inducer of drug-metabolizing enzymes. Ketoconazole, a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor, increased dabrafenib AUC by 71%, whereas the strong CYP2C8 inhibitor gemfibrozil increased AUC by 47% [82]. Conversely, repeated dabrafenib administration reduced midazolam AUC by 65% and decreased the AUCs of S-warfarin and R-warfarin by 37% and 33%, respectively, reflecting induction of CYP3A4, CYP2C9, and related pathways [82, 83]. These interactions may increase dabrafenib toxicity when its metabolism is inhibited or reduce the effectiveness of concomitant medications when enzyme induction accelerates their clearance.

4.3. Tissue Distribution and Penetration Barriers Adequate plasma exposure does not necessarily ensure sufficient drug concentrations within every tumor compartment. This distinction is particularly important in the central nervous system, where the blood–brain barrier and active efflux transporters restrict drug entry. Preclinical studies demonstrated that dabrafenib is a substrate of both P-glycoprotein and breast cancer resistance protein and that simultaneous activity of these transporters markedly limits its brain distribution when the blood–brain barrier is intact [75]. Trametinib is also subject to transporter-mediated restriction at the blood–brain barrier, which may further limit coordinated intracranial exposure during combination therapy [75, 84]. Distribution heterogeneity is not limited to the CNS. Experimental imaging and computational analyses have shown that BRAF inhibitors differ in their penetration across tumors and metastatic sites. High albumin binding, lipophilicity, systemic clearance, and target-dissociation kinetics were identified as factors that may restrict the depth and duration of dabrafenib exposure within visceral lesions [85]. Consequently, some tumor regions may receive subtherapeutic concentrations despite apparently adequate plasma levels, creating pharmacological niches in which residual or drug-tolerant cells can persist. The development of brain-penetrant and efflux-evasive RAF inhibitors demonstrates that molecular and physicochemical optimization can improve intracranial distribution[86-89]. However, these agents are distinct from dabrafenib and should not be presented as evidence that current dabrafenib formulations overcome the blood–brain barrier. For dabrafenib itself, the available evidence instead supports investigation of brain-targeted carriers, efflux-evasive delivery systems, and platforms capable of producing more uniform intratumoral distribution. Hence, Dabrafenib delivery strategies should be tailored to the specific pharmacokinetic barrier, including poor oral absorption, metabolic interactions, or limited tissue penetration. The sequential pharmacokinetic and anatomical barriers that shape dabrafenib exposure from oral administration to tumor and central nervous system delivery are summarized in Figure 3.

Resistance to Dabrafenib-Based Therapy Resistance remains the principal limitation to durable dabrafenib-based therapy in BRAF V600E-positive solid tumors. It may arise from pre-existing insensitivity, acquired molecular alterations, adaptive signaling, tumor-cell plasticity, microenvironmental protection, or insufficient drug exposure within specific tumor compartments [3, 8, 21, 90]. Although many mechanisms were initially characterized in melanoma, their relevance extends across BRAF V600E-positive tumors, with their relative importance determined by tumor lineage and biological context [3-6, 91].

5.1. Intrinsic and Acquired Resistance, Tumor Heterogeneity, and Adaptive Plasticity Intrinsic resistance occurs when a BRAF V600E-positive tumor shows limited initial sensitivity despite the presence of the therapeutic target. Pre-existing receptor tyrosine kinase activity, compensatory survival pathways, co-occurring genomic alterations, stromal support, and inadequate drug accessibility may reduce dependence on BRAF signaling and weaken the response to dabrafenib-based therapy [3, 8]. These factors vary among tumor lineages, explaining why BRAF V600E does not predict equivalent therapeutic sensitivity across all solid tumors. Acquired resistance develops under continued treatment pressure as residual tumor cells adapt and repopulate the tumor. It may result from selection of pre-existing resistant subclones or from initially reversible, non-genetic states that allow cells to tolerate BRAF/MEK inhibition before stable resistance mechanisms emerge [8, 21, 90]. Genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity facilitates this process: drug-sensitive populations regress, whereas resistant subclones and drug-tolerant persister-like cells survive through transcriptional, epigenetic, metabolic, or differentiation-state plasticity [21, 90]. Resistance should therefore be viewed as an evolutionary process that progresses from baseline insensitivity or transient drug tolerance to stable molecular and phenotypic escape, rather than as the consequence of a single newly acquired mutation.Cell-cycle deregulation and adaptive transcriptional rewiring may further stabilize resistant states. CDK4 alterations, CCND1 amplification, and CDKN2A loss weaken G1/S checkpoint control and may permit continued proliferation despite incomplete MAPK suppression [3, 92]. Co-occurring alterations in PTEN, TP53, the TERT promoter, and lineage-specific pathways may also modify baseline sensitivity and the route through which resistance develops [3, 8, 92]. In parallel, YAP and androgen receptor signaling can support transcriptional adaptation and reduced dependence on BRAF/MEK signaling, although the available evidence remains largely preclinical and melanoma-derived [3, 8, 92].

5.2. MAPK Reactivation and Bypass Signaling Reactivation of MAPK signaling is a major mechanism of resistance to dabrafenib-based therapy. Tumor cells may restore ERK activity through RAS activation, RAF dimerization, BRAF amplification or alternative isoforms, MEK alterations, and compensatory activation of receptor tyrosine kinases [8, 90]. Although trametinib delays pathway recovery by inhibiting MEK1/2, dual BRAF/MEK blockade may still be overcome by downstream alterations or reduced dependence on mutant BRAF. Non-canonical signaling may also contribute; ERK5 activation has been associated with acquired resistance to dabrafenib in BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma cells, and combined ERK5 and MEK inhibition reduced resistant-cell growth [93]. Resistance may also arise through bypass pathways that maintain survival without fully restoring canonical MAPK signaling. Activation of EGFR, PDGFR, IGF-1R, MET, and related receptors can stimulate PI3K–AKT–mTOR signaling and reduce dependence on BRAF–MEK–ERK activity [8, 90]. Tumor- or stromal-derived ligands may further promote this rescue: HGF can activate both MAPK and PI3K signaling, whereas IGF and NRG1 predominantly support PI3K-dependent survival and EGF or FGF can restore MAPK output [3]. The importance of these mechanisms varies according to receptor expression, stromal composition, and tumor lineage. ALDH1A1-associated stem-like states provide another form of bypass survival by maintaining PI3K/AKT signaling without necessarily restoring canonical MAPK activity [94]. BRAF V600E-mutant colorectal cancer provides the clearest clinical example of lineage-specific feedback resistance. BRAF inhibition relieves ERK-dependent negative feedback, leading to rapid EGFR activation and renewed RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK signaling [3, 8, 95]. Consequently, BRAF inhibitor monotherapy has limited activity in this setting, and effective pathway suppression requires concurrent EGFR blockade. This example demonstrates that resistance is shaped not only by the BRAF alteration itself but also by the signaling network of the tissue in which it occurs.

5.3. Tumor-Microenvironmental and Pharmacological Resistance The tumor microenvironment can protect residual tumor cells during dabrafenib-based therapy. Cancer-associated fibroblasts, immune cells, extracellular matrix components, hypoxia, abnormal vasculature, and soluble mediators may activate RTK-dependent survival pathways, reduce effective drug penetration, and create protective niches for cells exposed to BRAF/MEK inhibition [3, 8, 21, 90]. Immune remodeling, including regulatory T-cell expansion, M2-like macrophage polarization, and CD73-mediated adenosine signaling, may further suppress antitumor immunity and support tumor-cell persistence under therapeutic pressure [21, 96]. Pharmacological resistance may also occur when dabrafenib exposure is insufficient or uneven across the tumor, even when cancer cells remain molecularly sensitive to BRAF inhibition. Heterogeneous perfusion, elevated interstitial fluid pressure, hypoxia, and variable vascular permeability can create underexposed regions in which residual or drug-tolerant cells survive [3, 85]. Experimental and computational analyses have further shown that lipophilicity, albumin binding, systemic clearance, and target-dissociation kinetics may influence the depth and duration of dabrafenib penetration into visceral lesions [85]. This problem is particularly relevant in CNS tumors and brain metastases, where the blood–brain and blood–tumor barriers, active efflux transporters, and heterogeneous vascular permeability may create pharmacological sanctuary sites [3, 57]. Accordingly, delivery strategies should aim to reduce spatial underexposure, improve tumor- and brain-specific accumulation, and coordinate dabrafenib–trametinib exposure rather than merely increasing plasma drug concentrations [3, 57, 85].

Emerging Drug-Delivery Strategies for Dabrafenib in Solid Tumors The pharmacokinetic, anatomical, and microenvironmental barriers that limit dabrafenib exposure provide a rationale for delivery strategies aimed at improving drug solubilization, tumor-site accumulation, and coordination with trametinib. Current approaches include oral formulation and solid-state engineering, nanocarrier-based delivery, and locoregional or co-delivery platforms; however, most remain preclinical and require comparison with standard oral therapy.

6.1. Oral Formulation and Solid-State Engineering Oral formulation development for dabrafenib should primarily aim to improve dissolution robustness and maintain supersaturation rather than simply increase overall absorption. Clinical formulation studies have shown that capsule composition, particle properties, and precipitation behavior can substantially influence systemic exposure, despite the high absolute bioavailability of dabrafenib under fasting conditions [97, 98]. Crystal engineering offers one strategy for modifying dabrafenib dissolution. Rai et al. (2020) developed several salts and cocrystals, among which a dabrafenib–ethylenediamine hydrate salt showed an approximately 11-fold higher dissolution rate than the free drug and dissolved more rapidly than dabrafenib mesylate at pH 1.2. However, these findings were limited to in vitro solid-state and dissolution analyses, and the pharmacokinetic, stability, and therapeutic advantages of this alternative form remain unconfirmed [70]. Nanostructured oral formulations have also been investigated. β-Cyclodextrin nanosponges and PLGA-based particles described as dabrafenib nanobubbles produced several-fold increases in systemic exposure after oral administration in rats [99, 100]. Nevertheless, neither platform demonstrated improved tumor accumulation, MAPK-pathway inhibition, or antitumor efficacy in a genetically confirmed BRAF V600E-positive model. These systems should therefore be regarded as preliminary approaches for modifying oral exposure rather than established improvements over conventional dabrafenib formulations.

6.2. Nanocarrier-Based and Tumor-Targeted Delivery

Nanocarrier-based formulations have been explored to improve dabrafenib solubilization and release while enhancing cellular uptake and, in selected preclinical models, tumor-site accumulation. Russi et al. (2023) encapsulated dabrafenib in approximately 10-nm self-assembled nanomicelles formed from an amphiphilic dendrimer, achieving an encapsulation efficiency of approximately 70% and a drug-loading capacity of 27%. The formulation showed greater drug release at pH 5.0 than at pH 7.4 and enhanced antiproliferative activity compared with free dabrafenib in four melanoma cell lines [101]. However, the study was limited to in vitro experiments and did not assess pharmacokinetics, biodistribution, safety, or antitumor efficacy in vivo. Pham et al. (2021) developed an acid-responsive, CD47-functionalized human serum albumin nanoconstruct for systemic dabrafenib delivery. The approximately 220-nm formulation increased cellular uptake, tumor accumulation, apoptosis, and tumor-growth inhibition compared with free dabrafenib or non-targeted nanoconstructs in a murine melanoma model. Nevertheless, the B16F10 model was not genetically validated as BRAF V600E-positive; therefore, the findings demonstrate the carrier’s delivery and immunomodulatory potential but do not directly establish improved dabrafenib efficacy in molecularly appropriate BRAF V600E-driven disease [102].Overall, these studies support the potential of nanomicellar and albumin-based platforms to modify dabrafenib release and tumor delivery. However, evidence remains limited to in vitro or melanoma-focused preclinical models, and future studies should quantify intratumoral drug exposure and MAPK inhibition in genetically confirmed BRAF V600E-positive tumors.

6.3. Locoregional and Dabrafenib–Trametinib Co-Delivery Locoregional delivery and drug co-encapsulation offer complementary strategies for improving dabrafenib-based therapy. Locoregional administration may increase drug deposition in accessible cutaneous tumors, whereas co-delivery systems aim to coordinate the distribution of dabrafenib and trametinib within the same tumor compartments. However, evidence for both approaches remains limited to preclinical melanoma models. Tham et al. (2018) developed photodynamically active mesoporous organosilica nanoparticles loaded with dabrafenib and trametinib. Microneedle pretreatment facilitated nanoparticle transport across the epidermal barrier and increased penetration into deeper porcine skin. The integrated platform also inhibited melanoma spheroids and improved tumor control in an A375 xenograft model. Nevertheless, it was not compared directly with standard oral dabrafenib–trametinib therapy, and its application is largely restricted to accessible cutaneous or subcutaneous lesions [103]. Koshrovski-Michael et al. (2024) developed sulfate-functionalized PLGA–PEG nanoparticles that co-encapsulated dabrafenib and trametinib at a preselected synergistic ratio and targeted P-selectin expressed by melanoma cells and tumor-associated vasculature. In murine melanoma models, the targeted nanoparticles increased tumor accumulation, preserved the drug ratio within tumor tissue, and improved MAPK-pathway suppression, tumor-growth inhibition, and survival compared with the corresponding free-drug combination at matched low doses. However, their performance may depend on tumor P-selectin expression, and clinical superiority over conventional oral therapy remains unproven [104].

Overall, these studies support locoregional delivery and coordinated BRAF/MEK inhibitor co-delivery as promising strategies, but further evaluation requires pharmacokinetic comparisons, systemic safety assessment, and validation in genetically confirmed BRAF V600E-positive tumors beyond melanoma. As summarized in Table 3, dabrafenib-specific delivery research encompasses oral formulation optimization, nanocarrier-based solubilization, locoregional administration, and coordinated dabrafenib–trametinib delivery; however, the supporting evidence remains predominantly preclinical and heterogeneous.

Future Directions and Translational Priorities Clinical translation of dabrafenib delivery systems requires evidence of improved tumor-site exposure and MAPK-pathway inhibition compared with standard oral therapy. Future studies should also address formulation reproducibility, scalable manufacturing, biodistribution, clearance, chronic toxicity, immunological effects, and off-target accumulation, because preclinical antitumor activity alone does not ensure clinical feasibility or safety [105]. Next-generation RAF inhibitors may address resistance mechanisms or molecular contexts that are poorly controlled by conventional BRAF V600-selective inhibition. Tovorafenib, a type II RAF inhibitor, demonstrated clinically meaningful activity in relapsed or refractory BRAF-altered pediatric low-grade glioma in the FIREFLY-1 trial [59]. The investigational brain-penetrant pan-mutant BRAF inhibitor PF-07799933 also produced systemic and intracranial responses in heavily pretreated patients with BRAF-mutant cancers, including tumors with dimerization-associated resistance [39]. However, these agents should not be considered universal replacements for dabrafenib; their relevance depends on the exact BRAF alteration, resistance mechanism, tumor lineage, treatment history, and anatomical site of disease. Future combination strategies should likewise be selected according to tumor biology. In BRAF V600E-mutant colorectal cancer, combined PD-1, BRAF, and MEK inhibition with spartalizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib demonstrated proof-of-concept activity but remains investigational and should not replace established BRAF–EGFR-based treatment strategies [67]. More broadly, treatment selection should integrate BRAF mutation class, fusions, co-occurring alterations, resistance pathways, and tissue-specific drug accessibility. Next-generation sequencing and, where sufficiently validated, longitudinal circulating tumor DNA analysis may support treatment selection and early resistance monitoring [67]. Thus, future improvement of dabrafenib-based therapy will require coordinated consideration of molecular context, resistance biology, delivery performance, and tumor-site accessibility.

Conclusion The clinical activity of dabrafenib, particularly in combination with trametinib, confirms BRAF V600E as an important therapeutic target across multiple solid tumors. Nevertheless, mutation status alone does not determine the magnitude or durability of response. Tumor lineage, co-occurring alterations, adaptive signaling, microenvironmental protection, and lesion-level drug exposure collectively shape therapeutic outcome. Pharmacokinetic and tissue-distribution barriers may further generate poorly exposed tumor compartments in which residual or drug-tolerant cells persist. Emerging approaches, including solid-state engineering, nanocarriers, locoregional administration, and coordinated dabrafenib–trametinib co-delivery, offer potential means of improving drug availability, but their clinical advantage over standard oral therapy remains unproven. Future studies should therefore employ molecularly appropriate tumor models, directly quantify intratumoral drug concentrations and MAPK inhibition, and compare new formulations with current treatment standards. Ultimately, durable improvement in dabrafenib-based therapy will require an integrated framework that aligns molecular selection and resistance profiling with tumor-specific pharmacology and drug-delivery performance.

Figures

Keywords

References

1.Riesco-Eizaguirre, G., BRAF V600E thyroid cancer: navigating prognostic uncertainty and therapeutic opportunity. European Thyroid Journal, 2025. 14(6).
2.Jafari, M., et al., Prevalence and patterns of mutations in RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK/MAPK signaling pathway in colorectal cancer in North Africa. Bmc Cancer, 2022. 22(1): p. 1142.
3. Mechahougui, H., et al., BRAF targeting across solid tumors: molecular aspects and clinical applications. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2025. 26(8): p. 3757.
4. Gouda, M.A. and V. Subbiah, Expanding the benefit: dabrafenib/trametinib as tissue-agnostic therapy for BRAF V600E–positive adult and pediatric solid tumors. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 2023. 43: p. e404770.
5.Subbiah, V., et al., Dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAFV600E-mutated rare cancers: the phase 2 ROAR trial. Nature medicine, 2023. 29(5): p. 1103–1112.
6.Shimoi, T., et al., Dabrafenib and trametinib administration in patients with BRAF V600E/R or non-V600 BRAF mutated advanced solid tumours (BELIEVE, NCCH1901): a multicentre, open-label, and single-arm phase II trial. EClinicalMedicine, 2024. 69.
7.Wang, X., et al., Decabromodiphenyl ether exposure reduces dabrafenib sensitivity of papillary thyroid carcinoma harboring BRAFV600E mutation through the EGFR-CRAF-MAPK pathway: An in vitro study. Toxicology, 2024. 504: p. 153807.
8.Hanrahan, A.J., et al., BRAF—a tumour-agnostic drug target with lineage-specific dependencies. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 2024. 21(3): p. 224–247.
9.Eller, S., et al., Exploiting metabolic adaptations to overcome dabrafenib treatment resistance in melanoma cells. Molecular Oncology, 2026. 20(5): p. 1202–1219.
10.Xu, H., et al., Abnormal activation of the Ras/MAPK signaling pathway in oncogenesis and progression. Cancer Adv, 2025. 8: p. e25002.
11.Nian, H., et al., Targeting the Osteopontin-regulated PI3K/AKT signaling pathway: A molecular approach to overcome drug resistance and metastasis in gastrointestinal tumors. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology, 2025. 17(11): p. 109923.
12.Gu, Y., et al., EGFR: new insights on its activation and mutation in tumor and tumor immunotherapy. Advanced Science, 2025. 12(36): p. e05785.
13.Matthews, H.K., C. Bertoli, and R.A. De Bruin, Cell cycle control in cancer. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology, 2022. 23(1): p. 74–88.
14.Mubin, N., et al., Multidimensional tumor heterogeneity and its role in therapeutic resistance. Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. 17: p. 1794130.
15.Zhang, H., et al., Immune niche-associated and niche-regulated plasticity in glioblastoma: state transitions, immune escape, and therapeutic vulnerabilities. Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. 17: p. 1857659.
16.Balakirouchenane, D., et al., Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of dabrafenib and trametinib for redifferentiation and treatment of radioactive iodine-resistant mutated advanced differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid, 2023. 33(11): p. 1327–1338.
17.Isberner, N., et al., Monitoring of dabrafenib and trametinib in serum and self-sampled capillary blood in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. Cancers, 2022. 14(19): p. 4566.
18.Rocca, A., et al., The predictive and prognostic role of RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK pathway alterations in breast cancer: revision of the literature and comparison with the analysis of cancer genomic datasets. Cancers, 2022. 14(21): p. 5306.
19.Nair, A. and B. Saha, Regulation of Ras-GTPase signaling and localization by post-translational modifications. Kinases and Phosphatases, 2023. 1(2): p. 97–116.
20.Jeon, H., E. Tkacik, and M.J. Eck, Signaling from RAS to RAF: the molecules and their mechanisms. Annual review of biochemistry, 2024. 93.
21.Imani, S., et al., The evolution of BRAF-targeted therapies in melanoma: overcoming hurdles and unleashing novel strategies. Frontiers in Oncology, 2024. 14: p. 1504142.
22.Dhillon, A.S., et al., MAP kinase signalling pathways in cancer. Oncogene, 2007. 26(22): p. 3279–3290.
23.Spencer-Smith, R. and D.K. Morrison, Regulation of RAF family kinases: new insights from recent structural and biochemical studies. Biochemical Society Transactions, 2024. 52(3): p. 1061–1069.
24.Wan, P.T., et al., Mechanism of activation of the RAF-ERK signaling pathway by oncogenic mutations of B-RAF. Cell, 2004. 116(6): p. 855–867.
25.Yao, Z., et al., BRAF mutants evade ERK-dependent feedback by different mechanisms that determine their sensitivity to pharmacologic inhibition. Cancer cell, 2015. 28(3): p. 370–383.
26.Yu, A., et al., A novel phosphorylation site involved in dissociating RAF kinase from the scaffolding protein 14-3-3 and disrupting RAF dimerization. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2023. 299(10): p. 105188.
27.Park, E., et al., Architecture of autoinhibited and active BRAF–MEK1–14-3-3 complexes. Nature, 2019. 575(7783): p. 545–550.
28.Yao, Z., et al., Tumours with class 3 BRAF mutants are sensitive to the inhibition of activated RAS. Nature, 2017. 548(7666): p. 234–238.
29.Arter, Z.L., et al., Comprehensive Survey of AACR GENIE Database of Tumor Mutation Burden (TMB) Among All Three Classes (I, II, III) of BRAF Mutated (BRAF+) NSCLC. Lung Cancer: Targets and Therapy, 2025: p. 1–9.
30.Gunderwala, A., N. Cope, and Z. Wang, Mechanism and inhibition of BRAF kinase. Current opinion in chemical biology, 2022. 71: p. 102205.
31.Özgü, E., et al., Therapeutic vulnerabilities and pan-cancer landscape of BRAF class III mutations in epithelial solid tumors. BJC reports, 2024. 2(1): p. 77.
32.Singh, A.K., et al., Challenges and Opportunities in the Crusade of BRAF Inhibitors: From 2002 to 2022. ACS omega, 2023. 8(31): p. 27819–27844.
33.Fasano, M., et al., Dramatic therapeutic response to dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAF V600E mutated papillary craniopharyngiomas: a case report and literature review. Frontiers in Medicine, 2022. 8: p. 652005.
34.Corporation, N.P., TAFINLAR® (dabrafenib) prescribing information. 2025, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: East Hanover, NJ.
35.Gonzalez-Del Pino, G.L., et al., Allosteric MEK inhibitors act on BRAF/MEK complexes to block MEK activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021. 118(36): p. e2107207118.
36.Flaherty, K.T., et al., Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012. 367(18): p. 1694–1703.
37.Long, G.V., et al., Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine, 2014. 371(20): p. 1877–1888.
38.Corporation, N.P., MEKINIST® (trametinib) prescribing information. 2026, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: East Hanover, NJ.
39.Yaeger, R., et al., A next-generation BRAF inhibitor overcomes resistance to BRAF inhibition in patients with BRAF-mutant cancers using pharmacokinetics-informed dose escalation. Cancer Discovery, 2024. 14(9): p. 1599–1611.
40.Tkacik, E., et al., Structure and RAF family kinase isoform selectivity of type II RAF inhibitors tovorafenib and naporafenib. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2023. 299(5): p. 104634.
41.Kossakowski, K., et al., FDA-approved kinase inhibitors in PROTAC design, development and synthesis. Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry, 2025. 40(1): p. 2542357.
42.Zhang, S., et al., Targeted therapeutic strategies for melanoma. Chinese medical journal, 2023. 136(24): p. 2923–2930.
43.Hauschild, A., et al., Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 2012. 380(9839): p. 358–365.
44.Robert, C., et al., Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. New England Journal of Medicine, 2015. 372(1): p. 30–39.
45.Robert, C., et al., Five-year outcomes with dabrafenib plus trametinib in metastatic melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine, 2019. 381(7): p. 626–636.
46.Tabbò, F., et al., How far we have come targeting BRAF-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cancer Treatment Reviews, 2022. 103: p. 102335.
47.Planchard, D., et al., Phase 2 study of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC: updated 5-year survival rates and genomic analysis. Journal of thoracic oncology, 2022. 17(1): p. 103–115.
48.Planchard, D., et al., Phase 2 Study of Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in Patients With BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic NSCLC: Updated 5-Year Survival Rates and Genomic Analysis. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 2022. 17(1): p. 103–115.
49.Shimoi, T., et al., Dabrafenib and trametinib administration in patients with BRAF V600E/R or non-V600 BRAF mutated advanced solid tumours (BELIEVE, NCCH1901): a multicentre, open-label, and single-arm phase II trial. eClinicalMedicine, 2024. 69.
50.Chen, D., et al., Papillary thyroid cancer organoids harboring BRAFV600E mutation reveal potentially beneficial effects of BRAF inhibitor-based combination therapies. Journal of Translational Medicine, 2023. 21(1): p. 9.
51.Leboulleux, S., et al., MERAIODE: a redifferentiation phase II trial with trametinib and dabrafenib followed by radioactive iodine administration for metastatic radioactive iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer patients with a BRAFV600E mutation (NCT 03244956). Journal of the Endocrine Society, 2021. 5(Supplement_1): p. A876–A876.
52.Subbiah, V., et al., Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant anaplastic thyroid cancer: updated analysis from the phase II ROAR basket study. Annals of oncology, 2022. 33(4): p. 406–415.
53.Macerola, E., et al., Predictive biomarkers in thyroid cancer. Frontiers in Oncology, 2022. 12: p. 901004.
54.Min, K.-W., et al., Cancer-associated Fibroblasts Are Associated With Poor Prognosis in Solid Type of Lung Adenocarcinoma: Machine Learning Approach. 2021.
55.Di Nunno, V., et al., Implications of BRAF V600E mutation in gliomas: molecular considerations, prognostic value and treatment evolution. Frontiers in Oncology, 2023. 12: p. 1067252.
56.Tabernero Caturla, J., et al. Encorafenib Plus Cetuximab as a New Standard of Care for Previously Treated BRAF V600E–Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Updated Survival Results and Subgroup Analyses from the BEACON Study. American Society of Clinical Oncology.
57.Capogiri, M., et al., Response and resistance to BRAFV600E inhibition in gliomas: Roadblocks ahead? Frontiers in oncology, 2023. 12: p. 1074726.
58.Tabernero, J., et al., Encorafenib Plus Cetuximab as a New Standard of Care for Previously Treated BRAF V600E–Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Updated Survival Results and Subgroup Analyses from the BEACON Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2021. 39(4): p. 273–284.
59.Kilburn, L.B., et al., The type II RAF inhibitor tovorafenib in relapsed/refractory pediatric low-grade glioma: the phase 2 FIREFLY-1 trial. Nature medicine, 2024. 30(1): p. 207–217.
60.Ding, L., et al., Crossing the blood–brain barrier: innovations in receptor-and transporter-mediated transcytosis strategies. Pharmaceutics, 2025. 17(6): p. 706.
61.Upton, D.H., et al., Challenges and opportunities to penetrate the blood-brain barrier for brain cancer therapy. Theranostics, 2022. 12(10): p. 4734.
62.Long, G.V., et al., Final results for adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib in stage III melanoma. New England Journal of Medicine, 2024. 391(18): p. 1709–1720.
63.Menzies, A., et al., Five-year analysis of neoadjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib for stage III melanoma. Annals of Oncology, 2024. 35(8): p. 739–746.
64.Swalduz, A., et al., Real-world efficacy of the dabrafenib-trametinib (DT) combination in BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Results from the IFCT-2004 BLaDE cohort. Lung Cancer, 2025. 199: p. 108038.
65.Leboulleux, S., et al., A phase II redifferentiation trial with dabrafenib-trametinib and 131I in metastatic radioactive iodine refractory BRAF p. V600E-mutated differentiated thyroid cancer. Clinical Cancer Research, 2023. 29(13): p. 2401–2409.
66.Gao, M., et al., Efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in adults with differentiated thyroid cancer: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology, 2026.
67.Tian, J., et al., Combined PD-1, BRAF and MEK inhibition in BRAFV600E colorectal cancer: a phase 2 trial. Nature Medicine, 2023. 29(2): p. 458–466.
68.Chapdelaine, A.G., et al., The targeted degradation of BRAF V600E reveals the mechanisms of resistance to BRAF-targeted treatments in colorecal cancer cells. Cancers, 2023. 15(24): p. 5805.
69.Talloa, D., et al., BRAF and MEK targeted therapies in pediatric central nervous system tumors. Cancers, 2022. 14(17): p. 4264.
70. , S.K., et al., Improving the dissolution rate of the anticancer drug dabrafenib. Crystal Growth & Design, 2020. 20(2): p. 1035–1046.
71.Rai, S.K., et al., Polymorphs, solvatomorphs, hydrate, and perhydrate of dabrafenib. Crystal Growth & Design, 2023. 23(2): p. 1179–1188.
72.Ouellet, D., et al., Effects of particle size, food, and capsule shell composition on the oral bioavailability of dabrafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, in patients with BRAF mutation‐positive tumors. Journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 2013. 102(9): p. 3100–3109.
73.Puszkiel, A., et al., Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of dabrafenib. Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 2019. 58(4): p. 451–467.
74.Bershas, D.A., et al., Metabolism and disposition of oral dabrafenib in cancer patients: proposed participation of aryl nitrogen in carbon-carbon bond cleavage via decarboxylation following enzymatic oxidation. Drug Metabolism and Disposition, 2013. 41(12): p. 2215–2224.
75.Mittapalli, R.K., et al., Mechanisms limiting distribution of the threonine-protein kinase B-RaFV600E inhibitor dabrafenib to the brain: implications for the treatment of melanoma brain metastases. The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics, 2013. 344(3): p. 655–664.
76.Indulkar, A.S., et al., pH-dependent liquid–liquid phase separation of highly supersaturated solutions of weakly basic drugs. Molecular pharmaceutics, 2015. 12(7): p. 2365–2377.
77.Kumari, L., et al., Advancement in solubilization approaches: a step towards bioavailability enhancement of poorly soluble drugs. Life, 2023. 13(5): p. 1099.
78.Cheng, L. and H. Wong, Food effects on oral drug absorption: application of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling as a predictive tool. Pharmaceutics, 2020. 12(7): p. 672.
79.Tan, E.Y., et al., Evaluation of a Low‐Fat Low‐Calorie Meal on the Relative Bioavailability of Trametinib and Dabrafenib: Results From a Randomized, Open‐Label, 2‐Part Study in Healthy Participants. Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development, 2023. 12(3): p. 333–342.
80.Onoue, S., K. Yamada, and H. Sato, Advanced oral drug delivery systems: Current challenges and emerging technologies. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B, 2025.
81.Ouellet, D., et al., Population pharmacokinetics of dabrafenib, a BRAF inhibitor: effect of dose, time, covariates, and relationship with its metabolites. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2014. 54(6): p. 696–706.
82.Suttle, A.B., et al., Assessment of the drug interaction potential and single‐and repeat‐dose pharmacokinetics of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2015. 55(4): p. 392–400.
83.Nebot, N., et al., Evaluation of the Effects of Repeat‐Dose Dabrafenib on the Single‐Dose Pharmacokinetics of Rosuvastatin (OATP1B1/1B3 Substrate) and Midazolam (CYP3A4 Substrate). Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development, 2021. 10(9): p. 1054–1063.
84.Vaidhyanathan, S., et al., Factors influencing the CNS distribution of a novel MEK-1/2 inhibitor: implications for combination therapy for melanoma brain metastases. Drug Metabolism and Disposition, 2014. 42(8): p. 1292–1300.
85.Ng, T.S., et al., Overcoming differential tumor penetration of BRAF inhibitors using computationally guided combination therapy. Science Advances, 2022. 8(17): p. eabl6339.
86.Ren, L., et al., Identification of the clinical candidate PF-07284890 (ARRY-461), a highly potent and brain penetrant BRAF inhibitor for the treatment of cancer. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2024. 67(15): p. 13019–13032.
87.Kelly, A.M., et al., Target-agnostic p-glycoprotein assessment yields strategies to evade efflux, leading to a BRAF inhibitor with intracranial efficacy. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2022. 144(27): p. 12367–12380.
88.Wichmann, J., et al., Preclinical characterization of a next-generation brain permeable, paradox breaker BRAF inhibitor. Clinical Cancer Research, 2022. 28(4): p. 770–780.
89.Kim, Y.-Y., et al., Belvarafenib penetrates the BBB and shows potent antitumor activity in a murine melanoma brain metastasis model. Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, 2023. 40(2): p. 137–148.
90.Cosci, I., et al., Molecular basis of BRAF inhibitor resistance in melanoma: a systematic review. Pharmaceuticals, 2025. 18(8): p. 1235.
91.Planchard, D., et al., BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC: disease overview and treatment landscape. NPJ precision oncology, 2024. 8(1): p. 90.
92.Kreuger, I.Z., et al., Therapeutic strategies for targeting CDKN2A loss in melanoma. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 2023. 143(1): p. 18–25. e1.
93.Mondru, A.K., et al., The ERK5 pathway in BRAFV600E melanoma cells plays a role in development of acquired resistance to dabrafenib but not vemurafenib. FEBS letters, 2024. 598(16): p. 2011–2027.
94.Ciccone, V., et al., ALDH1A1 confers resistance to RAF/MEK inhibitors in melanoma cells by maintaining stemness phenotype and activating PI3K/AKT signaling. Biochemical pharmacology, 2024. 224: p. 116252.
95.Xu, T., et al., Molecular mechanisms underlying the resistance of BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer to EGFR/BRAF inhibitors. Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2022. 14: p. 17588359221105022.
96.Giraulo, C., et al., High levels of soluble CD73 unveil resistance to BRAF inhibitors in melanoma cells. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 2024. 177: p. 117033.
97.Ouellet, D., et al., Effects of particle size, food, and capsule shell composition on the oral bioavailability of dabrafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, in patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. J Pharm Sci, 2013. 102(9): p. 3100–9.
98.Puszkiel, A., et al., Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Dabrafenib. Clin Pharmacokinet, 2019. 58(4): p. 451–467.
99.Reddy, K.S.C., D. Bhikshapathi, and J.P. Kumar, Unlocking dabrafenib’s potential: A quality by design (QbD) journey to enhance permeation and oral bioavailability through nanosponge formulation. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2025. 61: p. e24209.
100.Laxmi, B.V., D. Bhikshapathi, and P.S. Rao, Optimization and enhancement of oral bioavailability of dabrafenib as nanobubbles using quality by design approach. 2025.
101.Russi, M., et al., Some things old, new and borrowed: Delivery of dabrafenib and vemurafenib to melanoma cells via self-assembled nanomicelles based on an amphiphilic dendrimer. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2023. 180: p. 106311.
102.Pham, L.M., et al., Preparation and evaluation of dabrafenib-loaded, CD47-conjugated human serum albumin-based nanoconstructs for chemoimmunomodulation. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 2021. 208: p. 112093.
103.Tham, H.P., et al., Microneedle-Assisted Topical Delivery of Photodynamically Active Mesoporous Formulation for Combination Therapy of Deep-Seated Melanoma. ACS Nano, 2018. 12(12): p. 11936–11948.
104.Koshrovski-Michael, S., et al., Two-in-one nanoparticle platform induces a strong therapeutic effect of targeted therapies in P-selectin–expressing cancers. Science advances, 2024. 10(50): p. eadr4762.
105.Joyce, P., et al., A translational framework to DELIVER nanomedicines to the clinic. Nature nanotechnology, 2024. 19(11): p. 1597–1611.