Melissa Wilson

Correlation of somatic mutations and clinical outcome in melanoma patients treated with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and sorafenib

Purpose: Sorafenib is an inhibitor of VEGF receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), and RAF kinases, amongst others. We assessed the association of somatic mutations with clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic melanoma treated on E2603, comparing treatment with carboplatin, paclitaxel ± sorafenib (CP vs. CPS). Experimental Design: Pretreatment tumor samples from 179 unique individuals enrolled on E2603 were analyzed. Genotyping was performed using a custom iPlex panel interrogating 74 mutations in 13 genes. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher exact test, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards models. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Results: BRAF and NRAS mutations were found at frequencies consistent with other metastatic melanoma cohorts. BRAF-mutant melanoma was associated with worse performance status, increased number of disease sites, and younger age at diagnosis. NRAS-mutant melanoma was associated with better performance status, fewer sites of disease, and female gender. BRAF and NRAS mutations were not significantly predictive of response or survival when treated with CPS versus CP. However, patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma trended toward a worse response and PFS on CP than those with BRAF-mutant or WT/WT melanoma, an association that was reversed for this group on the CPS arm. Conclusions: This study of somatic mutations in melanoma is the last prospectively collected phase III clinical trial population before the era of BRAF-targeted therapy. A trend toward improved clinical response in patients with NRAS-mutant melanoma treated with CPS was observed, possibly due to the effect of sorafenib on CRAF. Clin Cancer Res; 20(12); 3328–37. ©2014 AACR.

Molecular testing in melanoma.

AbstractMelanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer and is increasing in incidence. Recent treatment advances have been made, but there remains a need for continued development of effective therapy options, as treatment rarely leads to cure. Many melanomas contain somatic mutations involved in tumor pathogenesis. Accurate identification of these mutations is necessary to stratify patients for the purpose of treatment and potential for clinical trials, given the absence or presence of a specific mutation. There are a number of techniques available that will identify genetic mutations and genomic aberrations present within melanoma tumor samples which are reviewed here. The type of mutation and sample number will drive selection of a given mutation detection strategy. The strengths and weaknesses, along with limitations, of the various methods will also be discussed. The discovery of somatic mutations integral in melanoma will increase our understanding of tumor pathogenesis and should facilitate identification of mutations relevant to clinical treatment decisions, advancing progress toward personalized medicine.

Chemotherapy for Melanoma.

Prior to the recent therapeutic advances, chemotherapy was the mainstay of treatment options for advanced-stage melanoma. A number of studies have investigated various chemotherapy combinations in order to expand on the clinical responses achieved with single-agent dacarbazine, but these have not demonstrated an improvement in overall survival. Similar objective responses were observed with the combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel as were seen with single-agent dacarbazine. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, known as biochemo-therapy, has shown high clinical responses; however, biochemo-therapy has not been shown to improve overall survival and resulted in increased toxicities. In contrast, palliation and long-term responses have been observed with localized treatment with isolated limb perfusion or infusion in limb-isolated disease. Although new, improved therapeutic options exist for first-line management of advanced-stage melanoma, chemotherapy may still be important in the palliative treatment of refractory, progressive, and relapsed melanoma. We review the various chemotherapy options available for use in the treatment and palliation of advanced-stage melanoma, discuss the important clinical trials supporting the treatment recommendations, and focus on the clinical circumstances in which treatment with chemotherapy is useful.

Acute visual loss after ipilimumab treatment for metastatic melanoma

BackgroundIpilimumab, a humanized CLTA-4 antibody is a standard therapy in the treatment of advanced melanoma. While ipilimumab provides an overall survival benefit to patients, it can be associated with immune related adverse events (IrAEs).Case presentationHere we describe a patient treated with ipilimumab who experienced known IrAEs, including hypophysitis, as well as a profound vision loss due to optic neuritis. There are rare reports of optic neuritis occurring as an adverse event associated with ipilimumab treatment. Furthermore, the patient experienced multiple complications from high dose steroids used to manage his IrAEs.ConclusionsThis case highlights the need for recognition of atypical immune mediated processes associated with newer checkpoint inhibitor therapies including ipilimumab.

Copy Number Changes Are Associated with Response to Treatment with Carboplatin, Paclitaxel, and Sorafenib in Melanoma

Purpose: Copy number alterations have been shown to be involved in melanoma pathogenesis. The randomized phase III clinical trial E2603: carboplatin, paclitaxel, ± sorafenib (CP vs. CPS) offers a large collection of tumor samples to evaluate association of somatic mutations, genomic alterations, and clinical outcomes, prior to current FDA-approved therapies. Experimental Design: Copy number and mutational analysis on 119 pretreatment samples was performed. Results: CPS therapy was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CP in patients with tumors with RAF1 (cRAF) gene copy gains (HR, 0.372; P = 0.025) or CCND1 gene copy gains (HR, 0.45; P = 0.035). CPS therapy was associated with improved overall survival (OS) compared with CP in patients with tumors with KRAS gene copy gains (HR, 0.25; P = 0.035). BRAF gene copy gain and MET amplification were more common in samples with V600K versus V600E mutations (P < 0.001), which was validated in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset. Conclusions: We observed improved treatment response with CPS in patients with melanoma whose tumors have RAF1 (cRAF), KRAS, or CCND1 amplification, all of which can be attributed to sorafenib targeting CRAF. These genomic alterations should be incorporated in future studies for evaluation as biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res; 22(2); 374–82. ©2015 AACR.

What you are missing could matter: a rare, complex BRAF mutation affecting codons 599, 600, and 601 uncovered by next generation sequencing

Testing for somatic mutations in tumor samples is becoming standard practice in a number of tumor types where targeted therapies are available. Since clinical care is dependent on the identification of the presence or absence of specific mutations, it is important that these mutations be identified consistently and accurately. Here we identify in a patient with metastatic melanoma a novel, complex mutation involving BRAF c.1798A>T (p.T599T), c.1799T>A (p.V600E), and c.1803A>T (p.K601N) that was identified by next generation sequencing but not by standard testing methods. The patient was started on a combination therapy inhibiting both BRAF and MEK, and demonstrated a dramatic clinical response. This case highlights the need for improved methods of mutation testing in tumor samples and exposes a pitfall in allele-specific testing methods that can be overcome using next generation sequencing.

Germline determinants of clinical outcome of cutaneous melanoma

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the most lethal form of skin cancer. Despite the constant increase in melanoma incidence, which is in part due to incremental advances in early diagnostic modalities, mortality rates have not improved over the last decade and for advanced stages remain steadily high. While conventional prognostic biomarkers currently in use find significant utility for predicting overall general survival probabilities, they are not sensitive enough for a more personalized clinical assessment on an individual level. In recent years, the advent of genomic technologies has brought the promise of identification of germline DNA alterations that may associate with CM outcomes and hence represent novel biomarkers for clinical utilization. This review attempts to summarize the current state of knowledge of germline genetic factors studied for their impact on melanoma clinical outcomes. We also discuss ongoing problems and hurdles in validating such surrogates, and we also project future directions in discovery of more powerful germline genetic factors with clinical utility in melanoma prognostication.

Baseline antibody profiles predict toxicity in melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, or the combination) enhance anti-tumor immune responses, yielding durable clinical benefit in several cancer types, including melanoma. However, a subset of patients experience immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can be severe and result in treatment termination. To date, no biomarker exists that can predict development of irAEs.MethodsWe hypothesized that pre-treatment antibody profiles identify a subset of patients who possess a sub-clinical autoimmune phenotype that predisposes them to develop severe irAEs following immune system disinhibition. Using a HuProt human proteome array, we profiled baseline antibody levels in sera from melanoma patients treated with anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, or the combination, and used support vector machine models to identify pre-treatment antibody signatures that predict irAE development.ResultsWe identified distinct pre-treatment serum antibody profiles associated with severe irAEs for each therapy group. Support vector machine classifier models identified antibody signatures that could effectively discriminate between toxicity groups with > 90% accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Pathway analyses revealed significant enrichment of antibody targets associated with immunity/autoimmunity, including TNFα signaling, toll-like receptor signaling and microRNA biogenesis.ConclusionsOur results provide the first evidence supporting a predisposition to develop severe irAEs upon immune system disinhibition, which requires further independent validation in a clinical trial setting.

Primary Melanoma Histologic Subtype: Impact on Survival and Response to Therapy

BACKGROUND Two primary histologic subtypes, superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) and nodular melanoma (NM), comprise the majority of all cutaneous melanomas. NM is associated with worse outcomes, which have been attributed to increased thickness at presentation, and it is widely expected that NM and SSM would exhibit similar behavior once metastasized. Herein, we tested the hypothesis that primary histologic subtype is an independent predictor of survival and may impact response to treatment in the metastatic setting. METHODS We examined the most recent Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort (n = 118 508) and the New York University (NYU) cohort (n = 1621) with available protocol-driven follow-up. Outcomes specified by primary histology were studied in both the primary and metastatic settings with respect to BRAF-targeted therapy and immunotherapy. We characterized known driver mutations and examined a 140-gene panel in a subset of NM and SSM cases using next-generation sequencing. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS NM was an independent risk factor for death in both the SEER (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41 to 1.70, P < .001) and NYU (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.05, 2.07, P = .03) cohorts, controlling for thickness, ulceration, stage, and other variables. In the metastatic setting, NM remained an independent risk factor for death upon treatment with BRAF-targeted therapy (HR = 3.33, 95% CI = 1.06 to 10.47, P = .04) but showed no statistically significant difference with immune checkpoint inhibition. NM was associated with a higher rate of NRAS mutation (P < .001), and high-throughput sequencing revealed NM-specific genomic alterations in NOTCH4, ANK3, and ZNF560, which were independently validated. CONCLUSIONS Our data reveal distinct clinical and biological differences between NM and SSM that support revisiting the prognostic and predictive impact of primary histology subtype in the management of cutaneous melanoma.

Outcomes in Melanoma Patients Treated with BRAF/MEK-Directed Therapy or Immune Checkpoint Inhibition Stratified by Clinical Trial versus Standard of Care

Objectives: Since 2011, metastatic melanoma treatment has evolved with commercial approval of BRAF- and MEK-targeted therapy and CTLA-4- and PD-1-blocking antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICI). While novel therapies have demonstrated improved prognosis in clinical trials, few studies have examined the evolution of prognosis and toxicity of these drugs among an unselected population. We assess whether survival and toxicity reported in trials, which typically exclude most patients with brain metastases and poor performance status, are recapitulated within a commercial access population. Methods: 182 patients diagnosed with stage IV melanoma from July 2006 to December 2013 and treated with BRAF- and/or MEK-targeted therapy or ICI were prospectively studied. Outcomes and clinicopathologic differences between trial and commercial cohorts were assessed. Results: Patients receiving commercial therapy (vs. on trial) had poorer prognostic features (i.e., brain metastases) and lower median overall survival (mOS) when assessed across all treatments (9.2 vs. 17.5 months, p = 0.0027). While toxicity within trial and commercial cohorts did not differ, patients who experienced toxicity had increased mOS (p < 0.001), irrespective of stratification by trial status or therapy. Conclusion: Metastatic melanoma patients receiving commercial treatment may represent a different clinical population with poor prognostic features compared to trial patients. Toxicity may prognosticate treatment benefit.