Damien Kee

Acquired Resistance to BRAF Inhibitors Mediated by a RAF Kinase Switch in Melanoma Can Be Overcome by Cotargeting MEK and IGF-1R/PI3K

BRAF is an attractive target for melanoma drug development. However, resistance to BRAF inhibitors is a significant clinical challenge. We describe a model of resistance to BRAF inhibitors developed by chronic treatment of BRAF(V)⁶⁰⁰(E) melanoma cells with the BRAF inhibitor SB-590885; these cells are cross-resistant to other BRAF-selective inhibitors. Resistance involves flexible switching among the three RAF isoforms, underscoring the ability of melanoma cells to adapt to pharmacological challenges. IGF-1R/PI3K signaling was enhanced in resistant melanomas, and combined treatment with IGF-1R/PI3K and MEK inhibitors induced death of BRAF inhibitor-resistant cells. Increased IGF-1R and pAKT levels in a post-relapse human tumor sample are consistent with a role for IGF-1R/PI3K-dependent survival in the development of resistance to BRAF inhibitors.

RAS mutations in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors.

BACKGROUND Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas are common findings in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors. METHODS We performed a molecular analysis to identify oncogenic mutations (HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, CDKN2A, and TP53) in the lesions from patients treated with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. An analysis of an independent validation set and functional studies with BRAF inhibitors in the presence of the prevalent RAS mutation was also performed. RESULTS Among 21 tumor samples, 13 had RAS mutations (12 in HRAS). In a validation set of 14 samples, 8 had RAS mutations (4 in HRAS). Thus, 60% (21 of 35) of the specimens harbored RAS mutations, the most prevalent being HRAS Q61L. Increased proliferation of HRAS Q61L-mutant cell lines exposed to vemurafenib was associated with mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-pathway signaling and activation of ERK-mediated transcription. In a mouse model of HRAS Q61L-mediated skin carcinogenesis, the vemurafenib analogue PLX4720 was not an initiator or a promoter of carcinogenesis but accelerated growth of the lesions harboring HRAS mutations, and this growth was blocked by concomitant treatment with a MEK inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS Mutations in RAS, particularly HRAS, are frequent in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas that develop in patients treated with vemurafenib. The molecular mechanism is consistent with the paradoxical activation of MAPK signaling and leads to accelerated growth of these lesions. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00405587, NCT00949702, NCT01001299, and NCT01006980.).

RAS Mutations Are Associated With the Development of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Tumors in Patients Treated With RAF Inhibitors

PURPOSE RAF inhibitors are effective against melanomas with BRAF V600E mutations but may induce keratoacanthomas (KAs) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs). The potential of these agents to promote secondary malignancies is concerning. We analyzed cSCC and KA lesions for genetic mutations in an attempt to identify an underlying mechanism for their formation. METHODS Four international centers contributed 237 KA or cSCC tumor samples from patients receiving an RAF inhibitor (either vemurafenib or sorafenib; n = 19) or immunosuppression therapy (n = 53) or tumors that developed spontaneously (n = 165). Each sample was profiled for 396 known somatic mutations across 33 cancer-related genes by using a mass spectrometric-based genotyping platform. RESULTS Mutations were detected in 16% of tumors (38 of 237), with five tumors harboring two mutations. Mutations in TP53, CDKN2A, HRAS, KRAS, and PIK3CA were previously described in squamous cell tumors. Mutations in MYC, FGFR3, and VHL were identified for the first time. A higher frequency of activating RAS mutations was found in tumors from patients treated with an RAF inhibitor versus populations treated with a non-RAF inhibitor (21.1% v 3.2%; P < .01), although overall mutation rates between treatment groups were similar (RAF inhibitor, 21.1%; immunosuppression, 18.9%; and spontaneous, 17.6%; P = not significant). Tumor histology (KA v cSCC), tumor site (head and neck v other), patient age (≤ 70 v > 70 years), and sex had no significant impact on mutation rate or type. CONCLUSION Squamous cell tumors from patients treated with an RAF inhibitor have a distinct mutational profile that supports a mechanism of therapy-induced tumorigenesis in RAS-primed cells. Conceivably, cotargeting of MEK together with RAF may reduce or prevent formation of these tumors.

Combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib in patients with advanced BRAFV600-mutated melanoma: a phase 1b study

BACKGROUND Addition of a MEK inhibitor to a BRAF inhibitor enhances tumour growth inhibition, delays acquired resistance, and abrogates paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway in preclinical models of BRAF-mutated melanoma. We assessed the safety and efficacy of combined BRAF inhibition with vemurafenib and MEK inhibition with cobimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. METHODS We undertook a phase 1b study in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma. We included individuals who had either recently progressed on vemurafenib or never received a BRAF inhibitor. In the dose-escalation phase of our study, patients received vemurafenib 720 mg or 960 mg twice a day continuously and cobimetinib 60 mg, 80 mg, or 100 mg once a day for either 14 days on and 14 days off (14/14), 21 days on and 7 days off (21/7), or continuously (28/0). The primary endpoint was safety of the drug combination and to identify dose-limiting toxic effects and the maximum tolerated dose. Efficacy was a key secondary endpoint. All patients treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib were included in safety and efficacy analyses (intention-to-treat). The study completed accrual and all analyses are final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01271803. FINDINGS 129 patients were treated at ten dosing regimens combining vemurafenib and cobimetinib: 66 had recently progressed on vemurafenib and 63 had never received a BRAF inhibitor. Dose-limiting toxic effects arose in four patients. One patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 80 mg once a day 14/14 had grade 3 fatigue for more than 7 days; one patient on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg once a day 21/7 had a grade 3 prolongation of QTc; and two patients on a schedule of vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day and cobimetinib 60 mg 28/0 had dose-limiting toxic effects-one developed grade 3 stomatitis and fatigue and one developed arthralgia and myalgia. The maximum tolerated dose was established as vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day in combination with cobimetinib 60 mg 21/7. Across all dosing regimens, the most common adverse events were diarrhoea (83 patients, 64%), non-acneiform rash (77 patients, 60%), liver enzyme abnormalities (64 patients, 50%), fatigue (62 patients, 48%), nausea (58 patients, 45%), and photosensitivity (52 patients, 40%). Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (12 patients, 9%; all grade 3), raised amounts of alkaline phosphatase (11 patients, 9%]), and anaemia (nine patients, 7%). Confirmed objective responses were recorded in ten (15%) of 66 patients who had recently progressed on vemurafenib, with a median progression-free survival of 2·8 months (95% CI 2·6-3·4). Confirmed objective responses were noted in 55 (87%) of 63 patients who had never received a BRAF inhibitor, including six (10%) who had a complete response; median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 10·1-17·5). INTERPRETATION The combination of vemurafenib and cobimetinib was safe and tolerable when administered at the respective maximum tolerated doses. The combination has promising antitumour activity and further clinical development is warranted in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutated melanoma, particularly in those who have never received a BRAF inhibitor; confirmatory clinical testing is ongoing. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Ipilimumab in pretreated patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous, uveal and mucosal melanoma.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ipilimumab in an Australian clinical setting, and to assess the association of response with melanoma subtype, BRAF mutation status, absolute lymphocyte count and incidence of serious immune‐related adverse events (AEs).

Targeted Therapies for Cutaneous Melanoma

Melanoma is resistant to cytotoxic therapy, and treatment options for advanced disease have been limited historically. However, improved understanding of melanoma driver mutations, particularly those involving the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, has led to the development of targeted therapies that are effective in this previously treatment-refractory disease. In cutaneous melanomas with BRAF V600 mutations the selective RAF inhibitors, vemurafenib and dabrafenib, and the MEK inhibitor, trametinib, have demonstrated survival benefits. Early signals of efficacy have also been demonstrated with MEK inhibitors in melanomas with NRAS mutations, and KIT inhibitors offer promise in melanomas driven through activation of their target receptor.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis and Functional Imaging Provide Complementary Approaches for Comprehensive Disease Monitoring in Metastatic Melanoma

PurposeCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) allows noninvasive disease monitoring across a range of malignancies. In metastatic melanoma, the extent to which ctDNA reflects changes in metabolic disease burden assessed by 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is unknown. We assessed the role of ctDNA analysis in combination with FDG-PET to monitor tumor burden and genomic heterogeneity throughout treatment.Patients and MethodsWe performed a comprehensive analysis of serial ctDNA and FDG-PET in 52 patients who received systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma. Next-generation sequencing and digital polymerase chain reaction were used to analyze plasma samples from the cohort.ResultsctDNA levels were monitored across patients with mutant BRAF, NRAS, and BRAF/NRAS wild type disease. Mutant BRAF and NRAS ctDNA levels correlated closely with changes in metabolic disease burden throughout treatment. TERT promoter mutant ctDNA levels also paralleled changes in tumor burden, which provide ...

Immunotherapy of melanoma

Immunotherapy for advanced melanoma has progressed dramatically in the last five years with the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1). Inhibition of these targets can break cancer-immune tolerance and result in durable objective responses with significantly improved tolerability over cytokine-based immunotherapy. Ipilimumab is an inhibitor of CTLA-4 and the first-in-class immune checkpoint inhibitor to demonstrate an improvement in overall survival in melanoma. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab target PD-1 and have improved single agent activity and tolerability in comparison to ipilimumab. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab results in even better response rates, reductions in tumor volume and progression free survival but at the expense of considerable autoimmune effects. Autoimmune side-effects and non-standard response kinetics represent a new challenge associated with cancer therapies that practitioners will have to become more familiar with as checkpoint inhibitors increasingly become part of mainstream oncological practice. Ongoing areas of investigation include drug development against novel immune targets; alternative treatment modalities, such as genetically modified oncolytic viruses; optimization of immunotherapy combination strategies; and the identification of reliable biomarkers to better guide treatment selection.

Surveillance imaging with FDG-PET/CT in the post-operative follow-up of stage 3 melanoma

Background As early detection of recurrent melanoma maximizes treatment options, patients usually undergo post-operative imaging surveillance, increasingly with FDG-PET/CT (PET). To assess this, we evaluated stage 3 melanoma patients who underwent prospectively applied and sub-stage-specific schedules of PET surveillance. Patients and methods From 2009, patients with stage 3 melanoma routinely underwent PET +/- MRI brain scans via defined schedules based on sub-stage-specific relapse probabilities. Data were collected regarding patient characteristics and outcomes. Contingency analyses were carried out of imaging outcomes. Results One hundred and seventy patients (stage 3A: 34; 3B: 93; 3C: 43) underwent radiological surveillance. Relapses were identified in 65 (38%) patients, of which 45 (69%) were asymptomatic. False-positive imaging findings occurred in 7%, and 6% had treatable second (non-melanoma) malignancies. Positive predictive values (PPV) of individual scans were 56%-83%. Negative scans had predictive values of 89%-96% for true non-recurrence [negative predictive values (NPV)] until the next scan. A negative PET at 18 months had NPVs of 80%-84% for true non-recurrence at any time in the 47-month (median) follow-up period. Sensitivity and specificity of the overall approach of sub-stage-specific PET surveillance were 70% and 87%, respectively. Of relapsed patients, 33 (52%) underwent potentially curative resection and 10 (16%) remained disease-free after 24 months (median). Conclusions Application of sub-stage-specific PET in stage 3 melanoma enables asymptomatic detection of most recurrences, has high NPVs that may provide patient reassurance, and is associated with a high rate of detection of resectable and potentially curable disease at relapse.