Alexander M. Menzies

Prognostic and Clinicopathologic Associations of Oncogenic BRAF in Metastatic Melanoma

PURPOSE To assess the frequency and type of oncogenic BRAF mutations in metastatic melanoma and correlate BRAF status with clinicopathologic features and outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS Consecutive BRAF-tested Australian patients with metastatic melanoma (n = 197) were observed prospectively. A comprehensive range of clinicopathologic variables were correlated with BRAF mutation status, and a survival analysis was conducted. RESULTS Forty-eight percent of patients had a BRAF mutation; 70 patients (74%) had V600E, 19 (20%) had V600K, and six (6%) had other genotypes. Other than age at diagnosis of distant metastasis (median age, 56 v 63 years for BRAF-mutant v BRAF wild-type patients, respectively; P < .001), there was no significant difference in clinical features of patients with metastatic melanoma by mutation status. Features of the antecedent primary melanoma significantly associated with a BRAF mutation (P < .05) were histopathologic subtype, presence of mitoses, single or occult primary melanoma, truncal location, and age at diagnosis of primary tumor ≤ 50 years. The interval from diagnosis of first-ever melanoma to distant metastasis was not significantly different between BRAF-mutant and BRAF wild-type patients; however, the median survival of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic melanoma was 5.7 months for BRAF-mutant patients not treated with a BRAF inhibitor, 8.5 months for BRAF wild-type patients, and not reached for BRAF-mutant patients treated with a BRAF inhibitor. CONCLUSION V600K mutations comprised 20% of BRAF mutations. Characteristics of the antecedent primary melanoma and age at diagnosis differed in BRAF-mutant and BRAF wild-type patients. The presence of mutant BRAF had no impact on the disease-free interval from diagnosis of first-ever melanoma to first distant metastasis; however, it may have impacted survival thereafter.

Distinguishing Clinicopathologic Features of Patients with V600E and V600K BRAF-Mutant Metastatic Melanoma

Purpose: Certain clinicopathologic features correlate with BRAF mutation status in melanoma including younger age and primary subtype. This study sought to determine the BRAF mutation status by age-decade and whether BRAF-mutant genotypes correlated with clinicopathologic features and outcome in patients with metastatic melanoma. Methods: A prospectively assembled cohort of Australian patients were followed from diagnosis of metastatic melanoma (N = 308). Clinicopathologic variables were correlated with BRAF mutational status, genotype, and survival. Results: Forty-six percent of patients had a BRAF mutation; 73% V600E, 19% V600K, and 8% other genotypes. An inverse relationship existed between BRAF mutation prevalence and age-decade (P < 0.001). All patients <30 years and only 25% ≥70 years had BRAF-mutant melanoma. Amongst BRAF-mutant melanoma, the frequency of non-V600E genotypes (including V600K) increased with increasing age. Non-V600E genotypes comprised <20% in patients <50 years and >40% in those ≥70 years. A higher degree of cumulative sun-induced damage correlated with V600K but not V600E melanoma (P = 0.002). The disease-free interval from diagnosis of primary melanoma to first distant metastasis was shorter for patients with V600K compared with V600E melanoma (17.4 vs. 39.2 months, P = 0.048), with no difference in survival thereafter. In patients BRAF tested at diagnosis of metastatic melanoma, one year survival from diagnosis of metastasis was significantly longer for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma treated with an inhibitor (83%), than those not treated with an inhibitor (29%, P < 0.001), or patients with BRAF wild-type melanoma (37%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Different genotypes exist within BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma, representing biologically and clinically discrete subtypes, suggesting distinct etiology and behavior. Clin Cancer Res; 18(12); 3242–9. ©2012 AACR.

BRAF Inhibitor Resistance Mechanisms in Metastatic Melanoma: Spectrum and Clinical Impact

Purpose: Multiple BRAF inhibitor resistance mechanisms have been described, however, their relative frequency, clinical correlates, and effect on subsequent therapy have not been assessed in patients with metastatic melanoma. Experimental Design: Fifty-nine BRAFV600-mutant melanoma metastases from patients treated with dabrafenib or vemurafenib were analyzed. The genetic profile of resistance mechanisms and tumor signaling pathway activity was correlated with clinicopathologic features and therapeutic outcomes. Results: Resistance mechanisms were identified in 58% progressing tumors and BRAF alterations were common. Gene expression analysis revealed that mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activity remained inhibited in 21% of resistant tumors, and the outcomes of patients with these tumors were poor. Resistance mechanisms also occurred in pretreatment biopsies and heterogeneity of resistance mechanisms occurred within patients and within tumors. There were no responses to subsequent targeted therapy, even when a progressing tumor had a resistance mechanism predicted to be responsive. Conclusions: Selecting sequential drugs based on the molecular characteristics of a single progressing biopsy is unlikely to provide improved responses, and first-line therapies targeting multiple pathways will be required. Clin Cancer Res; 20(7); 1965–77. ©2014 AACR.

Ipilimumab Therapy in Patients With Advanced Melanoma and Preexisting Autoimmune Disorders

IMPORTANCE Ipilimumab and other immune therapies are effective treatment options for patients with advanced melanoma but cause frequent immune-related toxic effects. Autoimmune diseases are common, and the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab therapy in patients with preexisting autoimmune disorders is not known. OBJECTIVE To determine the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab therapy in patients with advanced melanoma with preexisting autoimmune disorders. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective review of patients with advanced melanoma and preexisting autoimmune disorders who received ipilimumab at 9 academic tertiary referral centers from January 1, 2012, through August 1, 2015. The data analysis was performed on August 24, 2015. EXPOSURE Ipilimumab therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Safety, in terms of frequency of autoimmune flares and conventional immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and efficacy, in terms of response rates and overall survival, were evaluated descriptively. RESULTS Of the 30 patients who received ipilimumab (17 [57%] male; median [range] age, 59.5 [30-80] y), 6 had rheumatoid arthritis, 5 had psoriasis, 6 had inflammatory bowel disease, 2 had systemic lupus erythematosus, 2 had multiple sclerosis, 2 had autoimmune thyroiditis, and 7 had other conditions. Thirteen patients (43%) were receiving immunosuppressive therapy at the time of initiation of ipilimumab therapy, most commonly low-dose prednisone or hydroxychloroquine. With ipilimumab treatment, 8 patients (27%) experienced exacerbations of their autoimmune condition necessitating systemic treatment; all were managed with corticosteroids. Conventional grade 3 to 5 irAEs occurred in 10 patients (33%) and were reversible with corticosteroids or with infliximab therapy in 2 cases. One patient with baseline psoriasis died of presumed immune-related colitis after a 1-week delay prior to reporting symptoms. Fifteen patients (50%) had neither autoimmune disease flares nor irAEs. Six patients experienced an objective response (20%), including 1 with a durable complete response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE To our knowledge, this is the largest series of patients with preexisting autoimmune disease treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ipilimumab was clinically active and was associated with exacerbations of autoimmune disease and conventional ipilimumab-induced irAEs that were readily manageable with standard therapies when started in a timely fashion. Ipilimumab therapy may be considered in this setting with vigilant clinical monitoring.

PD-L1 expression in melanoma shows marked heterogeneity within and between patients: implications for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 clinical trials

This study evaluated the expression of PD‐L1 in immunotherapy‐naïve metastatic melanoma patients to determine longitudinal intrapatient concordance and correlate PD‐L1 status with clinicopathologic characteristics and outcome. PD‐L1 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry in 58 patients (43 primary tumors, 96 metastases). Seventy‐two percent of patients had at least one specimen expressing PD‐L1 in ≥1% of tumor cells. Median positive tumor cell count overall was low (8% in nonzero specimens). PD‐L1 expression was frequently discordant between primary tumors and metastases and between intrapatient metastases, such that 23/46 longitudinal patient specimens were discordant. PD‐L1 was associated with higher TIL grade but not with other known prognostic features. There was a positive univariate association between PD‐L1 expression in locoregional metastases and melanoma‐specific survival, but the effect was not observed for primary melanoma. In locoregional lymph node metastasis, PD‐L1+/TIL+ patients had the best outcome, and PD‐L1+/TIL− patients had poor outcome.

Pneumonitis in Patients Treated With Anti-Programmed Death-1/Programmed Death Ligand 1 Therapy.

Purpose Pneumonitis is an uncommon but potentially fatal toxicity of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic features are poorly described. Methods Patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 mAb were identified at two institutions (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: advanced solid cancers, 2009 to 2014, and Melanoma Institute of Australia: melanomas only, 2013 to 2015). Pneumonitis was diagnosed by the treating investigator; cases with confirmed malignant lung infiltration or infection were excluded. Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic features of pneumonitis were collected. Associations among pneumonitis incidence, therapy received, and underlying malignancy were examined with Fishers exact test as were associations between pneumonitis features and outcomes. Results Of 915 patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAbs, pneumonitis developed in 43 (5%; 95% CI, 3% to 6%; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 27 of 578 [5%]; Melanoma Institute of Australia, 16 of 337 [5%]). Time to onset of pneumonitis ranged from 9 days to 19.2 months. The incidence of pneumonitis was higher with combination immunotherapy versus monotherapy (19 of 199 [10%] v 24 of 716 [3%]; P < .01). Incidence was similar in patients with melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer (overall, 26 of 532 [5%] v nine of 209 [4%]; monotherapy, 15 of 417 v five of 152 [ P = 1.0]; combination, 11 of 115 v four of 57 [ P = .78]). Seventy-two percent (31 of 43) of cases were grade 1 to 2, and 86% (37 of 43) improved/resolved with drug holding/immunosuppression. Five patients worsened clinically and died during the course of pneumonitis treatment; proximal cause of death was pneumonitis (n = 1), infection related to immunosuppression (n = 3), or progressive cancer (n = 1). Radiologic and pathologic features of pneumonitis were diverse. Conclusion Pneumonitis associated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAbs is a toxicity of variable onset and clinical, radiologic, and pathologic appearances. It is more common when anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAbs are combined with anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 mAb. Most events are low grade and improve/resolve with drug holding/immunosuppression. Rarely, pneumonitis worsens despite immunosuppression, and may result in infection and/or death.

Increased MAPK reactivation in early resistance to dabrafenib/trametinib combination therapy of BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma

One-third of BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma patients treated with combined BRAF and MEK inhibition progress within 6 months. Treatment options for these patients remain limited. Here we analyse 20 BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma metastases derived from 10 patients treated with the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib for resistance mechanisms and genetic correlates of response. Resistance mechanisms are identified in 9/11 progressing tumours and MAPK reactivation occurred in 9/10 tumours, commonly via BRAF amplification and mutations activating NRAS and MEK2. Our data confirming that MEK2(C125S), but not the synonymous MEK1(C121S) protein, confers resistance to combination therapy highlight the functional differences between these kinases and the preponderance of MEK2 mutations in combination therapy-resistant melanomas. Exome sequencing did not identify additional progression-specific resistance candidates. Nevertheless, most melanomas carried additional oncogenic mutations at baseline (for example, RAC1 and AKT3) that activate the MAPK and PI3K pathways and are thus predicted to diminish response to MAPK inhibitors.

Anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with advanced melanoma and preexisting autoimmune disorders or major toxicity with ipilimumab

Background Anti-PD-1 antibodies (anti-PD-1) have clinical activity in a number of malignancies. All clinical trials have excluded patients with significant preexisting autoimmune disorders (ADs) and only one has included patients with immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with ipilimumab. We sought to explore the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-1 in such patients. Patients and methods Patients with advanced melanoma and preexisting ADs and/or major immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with ipilimumab (requiring systemic immunosuppression) that were treated with anti-PD-1 between 1 July 2012 and 30 September 2015 were retrospectively identified. Results One hundred and nineteen patients from 13 academic tertiary referral centers were treated with anti-PD-1. In patients with preexisting AD (N = 52), the response rate was 33%. 20 (38%) patients had a flare of AD requiring immunosuppression, including 7/13 with rheumatoid arthritis, 3/3 with polymyalgia rheumatica, 2/2 with Sjogrens syndrome, 2/2 with immune thrombocytopaenic purpura and 3/8 with psoriasis. No patients with gastrointestinal (N = 6) or neurological disorders (N = 5) flared. Only 2 (4%) patients discontinued treatment due to flare, but 15 (29%) developed other irAEs and 4 (8%) discontinued treatment. In patients with prior ipilimumab irAEs requiring immunosuppression (N = 67) the response rate was 40%. Two (3%) patients had a recurrence of the same ipilimumab irAEs, but 23 (34%) developed new irAEs (14, 21% grade 3-4) and 8 (12%) discontinued treatment. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions In melanoma patients with preexisting ADs or major irAEs with ipilimumab, anti-PD-1 induced relatively frequent immune toxicities, but these were often mild, easily managed and did not necessitate discontinuation of therapy, and a significant proportion of patients achieved clinical responses. The results support that anti-PD-1 can be administered safely and can achieve clinical benefit in patients with preexisting ADs or prior major irAEs with ipilimumab.

Outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immunotherapy prior to or after BRAF inhibitors.

The immunotherapy (IT) agents ipilimumab and interleukin‐2 as well as BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) vemurafenib and dabrafenib, with or without trametinib (MEK inhibitors), are all FDA‐approved treatments for BRAF metastatic melanoma, but there are few studies to guide optimal sequencing. This retrospective analysis describes the outcomes of patients treated with either BRAFi before IT or IT before BRAFi.

BRAF inhibitor activity in V600R metastatic melanoma

Activating mutations in the BRAF gene occur in approximately 50% of melanomas. More than 70% of BRAF mutations are V600E and 10-30% are V600K. Potent and selective BRAF inhibitors have demonstrated significant clinical benefits in patients with V600E and V600K BRAF-mutated melanoma. V600R mutations constitute approximately 3-7% of all BRAF mutations and the activity of BRAF inhibitors in patients with this mutation is unknown. We have treated 45 patients with V600 mutated melanoma including patients with V600R mutation between July 2011 and October 2012 with the selective BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (n=43) or vemurafenib (n=2) via a compassionate access programme. The overall response rate was 50% for the whole population with a progression-free survival of 5.5 months. Five objective responses were seen in six assessable patients with V600R BRAF mutation (n=9). Our experience suggests that patients with V600R BRAF mutations can be treated successfully with oral BRAF inhibitors, and molecular diagnostic assays should include detection of this type of mutation.