Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comment on ‘Testing for BRAF fusions in patients with advanced BRAF/NRAS/KIT wild-type melanomas permits to identify patients who could benefit of anti-MEK targeted therapy’
  1. Thomas Botton,
  2. Thierry Passeron,
  3. Stéphane Rocchi
  1. INSERM U1065, Team 12, Centre Méditerranéen de Médecine Moléculaire, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Thomas Botton, Team 1, INSERM U1065, Nice 06204, France; thomas.botton{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read with great interest the article from Le Flahec and colleagues encouraging the testing for BRAF fusions in patients with advanced BRAF/NRAS/KIT wild-type melanomas.1 As emphasised in the article, the only viable therapeutic option currently available for patients lacking BRAF point mutations is immunotherapy. However, despite unprecedented efficacy gain, combined immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy only achieves long-lasting response in a third of the patients.2 Thus, considering that BRAF fusions are the most common oncogenic rearrangements in melanoma and that they are clinically actionable, we agree with the authors that their detection in BRAF/NRAS/KIT wild-type tumours is of theranostic importance. To further support the detection of BRAF fusions in melanoma, we would like to comment on some of the conclusions in the light of our recently published article on the subject.3

Our discovery that the nature of the fusion partner can influence the …

View Full Text


  • Handling editor Runjan Chetty.

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

  • Funding This study was funded by Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer, France (grant number:PDF20171206738).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.