Douglas B. Johnson

Genomic and Transcriptomic Features of Response to Anti-PD-1 Therapy in Metastatic Melanoma

PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade provides significant clinical benefits for melanoma patients. We analyzed the somatic mutanomes and transcriptomes of pretreatment melanoma biopsies to identify factors that may influence innate sensitivity or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. We find that overall high mutational loads associate with improved survival, and tumors from responding patients are enriched for mutations in the DNA repair gene BRCA2. Innately resistant tumors display a transcriptional signature (referred to as the IPRES, or innate anti-PD-1 resistance), indicating concurrent up-expression of genes involved in the regulation of mesenchymal transition, cell adhesion, extracellular matrix remodeling, angiogenesis, and wound healing. Notably, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-targeted therapy (MAPK inhibitor) induces similar signatures in melanoma, suggesting that a non-genomic form of MAPK inhibitor resistance mediates cross-resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. Validation of the IPRES in other independent tumor cohorts defines a transcriptomic subset across distinct types of advanced cancer. These findings suggest that attenuating the biological processes that underlie IPRES may improve anti-PD-1 response in melanoma and other cancer types.PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade provides significant clinical benefits for melanoma patients. We analyzed the somatic mutanomes and transcriptomes of pretreatment melanoma biopsies to identify factors that may influence innate sensitivity or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. We find that overall high mutational loads associate with improved survival, and tumors from responding patients are enriched for mutations in the DNA repair gene BRCA2. Innately resistant tumors display a transcriptional signature (referred to as the IPRES, or innate anti-PD-1 resistance), indicating concurrent up-expression of genes involved in the regulation of mesenchymal transition, cell adhesion, extracellular matrix remodeling, angiogenesis, and wound healing. Notably, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-targeted therapy (MAPK inhibitor) induces similar signatures in melanoma, suggesting that a non-genomic form of MAPK inhibitor resistance mediates cross-resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. Validation of the IPRES in other independent tumor cohorts defines a transcriptomic subset across distinct types of advanced cancer. These findings suggest that attenuating the biological processes that underlie IPRES may improve anti-PD-1 response in melanoma and other cancer types.

Acquired resistance and clonal evolution in melanoma during BRAF inhibitor therapy

BRAF inhibitors elicit rapid antitumor responses in the majority of patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma, but acquired drug resistance is almost universal. We sought to identify the core resistance pathways and the extent of tumor heterogeneity during disease progression. We show that mitogen-activated protein kinase reactivation mechanisms were detected among 70% of disease-progressive tissues, with RAS mutations, mutant BRAF amplification, and alternative splicing being most common. We also detected PI3K-PTEN-AKT-upregulating genetic alterations among 22% of progressive melanomas. Distinct molecular lesions in both core drug escape pathways were commonly detected concurrently in the same tumor or among multiple tumors from the same patient. Beyond harboring extensively heterogeneous resistance mechanisms, melanoma regrowth emerging from BRAF inhibitor selection displayed branched evolution marked by altered mutational spectra/signatures and increased fitness. Thus, melanoma genomic heterogeneity contributes significantly to BRAF inhibitor treatment failure, implying upfront, cotargeting of two core pathways as an essential strategy for durable responses.

Chemotherapy in addition to supportive care improves survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE Since our individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) of supportive care and chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), published in 1995, many trials have been completed. An updated, IPD MA has been carried out to assess newer regimens and determine conclusively the effect of chemotherapy. METHODS Systematic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were undertaken, followed by central collection, checking, and reanalysis of updated IPD. Results from RCTs were combined to calculate individual and pooled hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS Data were obtained from 2,714 patients from 16 RCTs. There were 1,293 deaths among 1,399 patients assigned supportive care and chemotherapy and 1,240 among 1,315 assigned supportive care alone. Results showed a significant benefit of chemotherapy (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.83; P <or= .0001), equivalent to a relative increase in survival of 23% or an absolute improvement in survival of 9% at 12 months, increasing survival from 20% to 29%. There was no clear evidence that this effect was influenced by the drugs used (P = .63) or whether they were used as single agents or in combination (P = .40). Despite changes in patient demographics, the effect of chemotherapy in recent trials did not differ from those included previously (P = .77). There was no clear evidence of a difference or trend in the relative effect of chemotherapy across patient subgroups. CONCLUSION This MA of chemotherapy in the supportive care setting demonstrates conclusively that chemotherapy improves overall survival in all patients with advanced NSCLC. Therefore, all patients who are fit enough and wish to receive chemotherapy should do so.

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.

Completion Dissection or Observation for Sentinel-Node Metastasis in Melanoma

BACKGROUND Sentinel‐lymph‐node biopsy is associated with increased melanoma‐specific survival (i.e., survival until death from melanoma) among patients with node‐positive intermediate‐thickness melanomas (1.2 to 3.5 mm). The value of completion lymph‐node dissection for patients with sentinel‐node metastases is not clear. METHODS In an international trial, we randomly assigned patients with sentinel‐node metastases detected by means of standard pathological assessment or a multimarker molecular assay to immediate completion lymph‐node dissection (dissection group) or nodal observation with ultrasonography (observation group). The primary end point was melanoma‐specific survival. Secondary end points included disease‐free survival and the cumulative rate of nonsentinel‐node metastasis. RESULTS Immediate completion lymph‐node dissection was not associated with increased melanoma‐specific survival among 1934 patients with data that could be evaluated in an intention‐to‐treat analysis or among 1755 patients in the per‐protocol analysis. In the per‐protocol analysis, the mean (±SE) 3‐year rate of melanoma‐specific survival was similar in the dissection group and the observation group (86±1.3% and 86±1.2%, respectively; P=0.42 by the log‐rank test) at a median follow‐up of 43 months. The rate of disease‐free survival was slightly higher in the dissection group than in the observation group (68±1.7% and 63±1.7%, respectively; P=0.05 by the log‐rank test) at 3 years, based on an increased rate of disease control in the regional nodes at 3 years (92±1.0% vs. 77±1.5%; P<0.001 by the log‐rank test); these results must be interpreted with caution. Nonsentinel‐node metastases, identified in 11.5% of the patients in the dissection group, were a strong, independent prognostic factor for recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.78; P=0.005). Lymphedema was observed in 24.1% of the patients in the dissection group and in 6.3% of those in the observation group. CONCLUSIONS Immediate completion lymph‐node dissection increased the rate of regional disease control and provided prognostic information but did not increase melanoma‐specific survival among patients with melanoma and sentinel‐node metastases. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; MSLT‐II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297895.)

Non-genomic and Immune Evolution of Melanoma Acquiring MAPKi Resistance

Clinically acquired resistance to MAPK inhibitor (MAPKi) therapies for melanoma cannot be fully explained by genomic mechanisms and may be accompanied by co-evolution of intra-tumoral immunity. We sought to discover non-genomic mechanisms of acquired resistance and dynamic immune compositions by a comparative, transcriptomic-methylomic analysis of patient-matched melanoma tumors biopsied before therapy and during disease progression. Transcriptomic alterations across resistant tumors were highly recurrent, in contrast to mutations, and were frequently correlated with differential methylation of tumor cell-intrinsic CpG sites. We identified in the tumor cell compartment supra-physiologic c-MET up-expression, infra-physiologic LEF1 down-expression and YAP1 signature enrichment as drivers of acquired resistance. Importantly, high intra-tumoral cytolytic T cell inflammation prior to MAPKi therapy preceded CD8 T cell deficiency/exhaustion and loss of antigen presentation in half of disease-progressive melanomas, suggesting cross-resistance to salvage anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. Thus, melanoma acquires MAPKi resistance with highly dynamic and recurrent non-genomic alterations and co-evolving intra-tumoral immunity.

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.

Combined BRAF (Dabrafenib) and MEK Inhibition (Trametinib) in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutant Melanoma Experiencing Progression With Single-Agent BRAF Inhibitor

PURPOSE Preclinical and early clinical studies have demonstrated that initial therapy with combined BRAF and MEK inhibition is more effective in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma than single-agent BRAF inhibitors. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib in patients who had received prior BRAF inhibitor treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this open-label phase I/II study, we evaluated the pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib. Here, we report patients treated with combination therapy after disease progression with BRAF inhibitor treatment administered before study enrollment (part B; n = 26) or after cross-over at progression with dabrafenib monotherapy (part C; n = 45). RESULTS In parts B and C, confirmed objective response rates (ORR) were 15% (95% CI, 4% to 35%) and 13% (95% CI, 5% to 27%), respectively; an additional 50% and 44% experienced stable disease ≥ 8 weeks, respectively. In part C, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2 to 4), and median overall survival was 11.8 months (95% CI, 8 to 25) from cross-over. Patients who previously received dabrafenib ≥ 6 months had superior outcomes with the combination compared with those treated < 6 months; median PFS was 3.9 (95% CI, 3 to 7) versus 1.8 months (95% CI, 2 to 4; hazard ratio, 0.49; P = .02), and ORR was 26% (95% CI, 10% to 48%) versus 0% (95% CI, 0% to 15%). CONCLUSION Dabrafenib plus trametinib has modest clinical efficacy in patients with BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma. This regimen may be a therapeutic strategy for patients who previously benefited from BRAF inhibitor monotherapy ≥ 6 months but demonstrates minimal efficacy after rapid progression with BRAF inhibitor therapy.

Tunable-Combinatorial Mechanisms of Acquired Resistance Limit the Efficacy of BRAF/MEK Cotargeting but Result in Melanoma Drug Addiction

Combined BRAF- and MEK-targeted therapy improves upon BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) therapy but is still beset by acquired resistance. We show that melanomas acquire resistance to combined BRAF and MEK inhibition by augmenting or combining mechanisms of single-agent BRAFi resistance. These double-drug resistance-associated genetic configurations significantly altered molecular interactions underlying MAPK pathway reactivation. (V600E)BRAF, expressed at supraphysiological levels because of (V600E)BRAF ultra-amplification, dimerized with and activated CRAF. In addition, MEK mutants enhanced interaction with overexpressed (V600E)BRAF via a regulatory interface at R662 of (V600E)BRAF. Importantly, melanoma cell lines selected for resistance to BRAFi+MEKi, but not those to BRAFi alone, displayed robust drug addiction, providing a potentially exploitable therapeutic opportunity.

Acquired BRAF inhibitor resistance: A multicenter meta-analysis of the spectrum and frequencies, clinical behaviour, and phenotypic associations of resistance mechanisms

BACKGROUND Acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) is a near-universal phenomenon caused by numerous genetic and non-genetic alterations. In this study, we evaluated the spectrum, onset, pattern of progression, and subsequent clinical outcomes associated with specific mechanisms of resistance. METHODS We compiled clinical and genetic data from 100 patients with 132 tissue samples obtained at progression on BRAFi therapy from 3 large, previously published studies of BRAFi resistance. These samples were subjected to whole-exome sequencing and/or polymerase chain reaction-based genetic testing. RESULTS Among 132 samples, putative resistance mechanisms were identified in 58%, including NRAS or KRAS mutations (20%), BRAF splice variants (16%), BRAF(V600E/K) amplifications (13%), MEK1/2 mutations (7%), and non-mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway alterations (11%). Marked heterogeneity was observed within tumors and patients; 18 of 19 patients (95%) with more than one progression biopsy had distinct/unknown drivers of resistance between samples. NRAS mutations were associated with vemurafenib use (p = 0.045) and intracranial metastases (p = 0.036), and MEK1/2 mutations correlated with hepatic progression (p = 0.011). Progression-free survival and overall survival were similar across resistance mechanisms. The median survival after disease progression was 6.9 months, and responses to subsequent BRAF and MEK inhibition were uncommon (2 of 15; 13%). Post-progression outcomes did not correlate with specific acquired BRAFi-resistance mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS This is the first study to systematically characterise the clinical implications of particular acquired BRAFi-resistance mechanisms in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma largest study to compile the landscape of resistance. Despite marked heterogeneity of resistance mechanisms within patients, NRAS mutations correlated with vemurafenib use and intracranial disease involvement.