An Acquired Vulnerability of Drug-Resistant Melanoma with Therapeutic Potential.

BRAF(V600E) mutant melanomas treated with inhibitors of the BRAF and MEK kinases almost invariably develop resistance that is frequently caused by reactivation of the mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. To identify novel treatment options for such patients, we searched for acquired vulnerabilities of MAPK inhibitor-resistant melanomas. We find that resistance to BRAF+MEK inhibitors is associated with increased levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Subsequent treatment with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat suppresses SLC7A11, leading to a lethal increase in the already-elevated levels of ROS in drug-resistant cells. This causes selective apoptotic death of only the drug-resistant tumor cells. Consistently, treatment of BRAF inhibitor-resistant melanoma with vorinostat in mice results in dramatic tumor regression. In a study in patients with advanced BRAF+MEK inhibitor-resistant melanoma, we find that vorinostat can selectively ablate drug-resistant tumor cells, providing clinical proof of concept for the novel therapy identified here.

Mutational profiles associated with resistance in patients with BRAFV600E mutant colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab and encorafenib +/- binimetinib or alpelisib.

BACKGROUND: Treatment strategies inhibiting BRAF in combination with EGFR have been developed in patients with BRAFV600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer, but intrinsic and secondary resistance remains a challenge. We aimed to investigate which genetic alterations cause intrinsic non-response and/or acquired resistance in these patients receiving therapies consisting of a backbone of BRAF and EGFR inhibition. METHODS: This was a cohort study on genetic alterations in patients with BRAFV600E mutant advanced colorectal cancer treated with inhibitors of the MAPK pathway. We examined tumour tissue for genetic alterations at baseline, during treatment and at progression. RESULTS: In total, 37 patients were included in this cohort. Genetic alterations in EGFR and in PIK3CA are associated with non-response. A greater fraction of non-responders (75%) versus responders (46%) had at least one genetic alteration in other genes than TP53, APC or BRAF. Secondary resistance mutations (n = 16 patients) were observed most frequently in the PI3K pathway (n = 6) and in receptor tyrosine kinases (n = 4), leading to increased upstream signalling. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic alterations in the PI3K and upstream receptor tyrosine kinases were mostly associated with intrinsic and acquired resistance. By understanding these alterations, simultaneous or alternating treatments with targeted inhibitors might improve response duration.

Phase I Study of Afatinib and Selumetinib in Patients with KRAS-Mutated Colorectal, Non-Small Cell Lung, and Pancreatic Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent dosing schedules, albeit at lower doses than approved for monotherapy. Maximum tolerated dose for continuous and intermittent schedules is afatinib 20 mg once daily and selumetinib 25 mg b.i.d. Because the anticancer activity was limited, further development of this combination is not recommended until better biomarkers for response and resistance are defined. BACKGROUND: Antitumor effects of MEK inhibitors are limited in KRAS-mutated tumors because of feedback activation of upstream epidermal growth factor receptors, which reactivates the MAPK and the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-AKT pathway. Therefore, this phase I trial was initiated with the pan-HER inhibitor afatinib plus the MEK inhibitor selumetinib in patients with KRAS mutant, PIK3CA wild-type tumors. METHODS: Afatinib and selumetinib were administered according to a 3+3 design in continuous and intermittent schedules. The primary objective was safety, and the secondary objective was clinical efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled with colorectal cancer (n = 19), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 6), and pancreatic cancer (n = 1). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in six patients, including grade 3 diarrhea, dehydration, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and mucositis. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was 20 mg afatinib once daily (QD) and 25 mg selumetinib b.i.d. (21 days on/7 days off) for continuous afatinib dosing and for intermittent dosing with both drugs 5 days on/2 days off. Efficacy was limited with disease stabilization for 221 days in a patient with NSCLC as best response. CONCLUSION: Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent schedules in patients with KRAS mutant tumors. Although target engagement was observed, the clinical efficacy was limited.

Phase 1 study of the pan-HER inhibitor dacomitinib plus the MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 in patients with KRAS-mutation-positive colorectal, non-small-cell lung and pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in KRAS result in a constitutively activated MAPK pathway. In KRAS-mutant tumours existing treatment options, e.g. MEK inhibition, have limited efficacy due to resistance through feedback activation of epidermal growth factor receptors (HER). METHODS: In this Phase 1 study, the pan-HER inhibitor dacomitinib was combined with the MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 in patients with KRAS-mutant colorectal, pancreatic and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients received escalating oral doses of once daily dacomitinib and twice daily PD-0325901 to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02039336). RESULTS: Eight out of 41 evaluable patients (27 colorectal cancer, 11 NSCLC and 3 pancreatic cancer) among 8 dose levels experienced dose-limiting toxicities. The RP2D with continuous dacomitinib dosing was 15 mg of dacomitinib plus 6 mg of PD-0325901 (21 days on/7 days off), but major toxicity, including rash (85%), diarrhoea (88%) and nausea (63%), precluded long-term treatment. Therefore, other intermittent schedules were explored, which only slightly improved toxicity. Tumour regression was seen in eight patients with the longest treatment duration (median 102 days) in NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary signs of antitumour activity in NSCLC were seen, we do not recommend further exploration of this combination in KRAS-mutant patients due to its negative safety profile.

Encorafenib, binimetinib and cetuximab combined therapy for patients with BRAFV600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer.

Approximately 10-15% of colorectal cancers (CRCs) harbor an activating BRAF mutation, leading to tumor growth promotion by activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinases pathway. BRAFV600E mutations are prognostic for treatment failure after first-line systemic therapy in the metastatic setting. In contrast to the efficacy of combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma, BRAFV600E mutant CRC is intrinsically unresponsive due to upregulation of HER/EGFR. However, combining the EGFR inhibitor cetuximab, the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib and the MEK inhibitor binimetinib improves overall survival. This review discusses the current treatment field for patients with BRAFV600E mutant metastatic CRC and summarizes the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of the novel doublet and triplet therapies consisting of encorafenib and cetuximab with or without binimetinib.

Vorinostat in patients with resistant BRAFV600E mutated advanced melanoma: a proof of concept study.

The clinical benefit of treatment with BRAF- and MEK-inhibitors in melanoma is limited due to resistance associated with emerging secondary mutations. Preclinical and clinical studies have shown that short-term treatment with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat can eliminate cells harboring these secondary mutations causing resistance. This proof of concept study is to determine the efficacy of sequential treatment with vorinostat and BRAFi/MEKi in resistant BRAFV600E mutant melanoma. The primary aim is demonstrating anti-tumor response of progressive lesions according to RECIST 1.1. Secondary end points are to determine that emerging resistant clones with a secondary mutation in the MAPK pathway can be detected in circulating tumor DNA and purged by short-term vorinostat treatment. Exploratory end points include pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and pharmacogenetic analyses (NCT02836548).

End-of-life care during and after an acute hospitalization in older patients with cancer, end-stage organ failure, or frailty: A sub-analysis of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients show deterioration in functioning and increased care needs in the last year of life. End-of-life care needs and health care utilization might differ between groups of acutely hospitalized older patients. AIM: To investigate differences in geriatric conditions, advance care planning, and health care utilization in patients with cancer, organ failure, or frailty, who died within 1 year after acute hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study conducted between 2002 and 2008, with 1-year follow-up. SETTING: University teaching hospital in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Aged ⩾65 years, acutely hospitalized for ⩾48 h, and died within 1 year after hospitalization. At admission, all patients received a systematic comprehensive geriatric assessment. Hospital records were searched for advance care planning information and health care utilization. Differences between patient groups were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 306 patients died within 1 year after acute admission (35%) and were included; 151 with cancer, 98 with end-stage organ failure, and 57 frail older persons. At hospital admission, 72% of the frail group had delirium and/or severe pre-existing cognitive impairment. The frail and organ failure group had many pre-existing disabilities. Three months post-discharge, 75% of the frail and organ failure group had died, 45% of these patients had an advance care plan in their hospital records. CONCLUSION: Patients with frailty and organ failure had highest rates of geriatric conditions at hospital admission and often had missing information on advance care planning in the hospital records. There is a need to better identify end-of-life needs for these groups.

A proof-of-concept study of sequential treatment with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat following BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAFV600mutated melanoma.

PURPOSE: Development of resistance limits the clinical benefit of BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAFi/MEKi) in BRAFV600 mutated melanoma. It has been shown that short-term treatment (14 days) with vorinostat was able to initiate apoptosis of the resistant tumor cells. We aimed to assess the anti-tumor activity of sequential treatment with vorinostat following BRAFi/MEKi in patients with BRAFV600 melanoma who progressed after initial response to BRAFi/MEKi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with BRAFi/MEKi resistant BRAFV600 melanoma were treated with vorinostat 360 mg QD for 14 days followed by BRAFi/MEKi. The primary endpoint was an objective response rate of progressive lesions of at least 30% according to RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, pharmacokinetics of vorinostat and translational molecular analyses using ctDNA and tumor biopsies. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with progressive BRAFi/MEKi resistant BRAFV600 mutated melanoma received treatment with vorinostat. Twenty-two patients were evaluable for response. The ORR was 9% (one complete response for 31.2 months and one partial response for 14.9 months. Median PFS and OS were 1.4 and 5.4 months, respectively. Common adverse events were fatigue (23%) and nausea (19%). ctDNA analysis showed emerging secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK in eight patients at time of BRAFi/MEKi resistance. Elimination of these mutations by vorinostat treatment was observed in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent treatment with vorinostat in patients with resistant BRAFV600mutated melanoma is well tolerated. Although the primary endpoint of this study was not met, durable anti-tumor responses were observed in a minority of patients (9%).

Phase I study of lapatinib plus trametinib in patients with KRAS-mutant colorectal, non-small cell lung, and pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: KRAS oncogene mutations cause sustained signaling through the MAPK pathway. Concurrent inhibition of MEK, EGFR, and HER2 resulted in complete inhibition of tumor growth in KRAS-mutant (KRASm) and PIK3CA wild-type tumors, in vitro and in vivo. In this phase I study, patients with advanced KRASm and PIK3CA wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and pancreatic cancer, were treated with combined lapatinib and trametinib to assess the recommended phase 2 regimen (RP2R). METHODS: Patients received escalating doses of continuous or intermittent once daily (QD) orally administered lapatinib and trametinib, starting at 750 mg and 1 mg continuously, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (16 CRC, 15 NSCLC, three pancreatic cancers) were enrolled across six dose levels and eight patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities, including grade 3 diarrhea (n = 2), rash (n = 2), nausea (n = 1), multiple grade 2 toxicities (n = 1), and aspartate aminotransferase elevation (n = 1), resulting in the inability to receive 75% of planned doses (n = 2) or treatment delay (n = 2). The RP2R with continuous dosing was 750 mg lapatinib QD plus 1 mg trametinib QD and with intermittent dosing 750 mg lapatinib QD and trametinib 1.5 mg QD 5 days on/2 days off. Regression of target lesions was seen in 6 of the 24 patients evaluable for response, with one confirmed partial response in NSCLC. Pharmacokinetic results were as expected. CONCLUSION: Lapatinib and trametinib could be combined in an intermittent dosing schedule in patients with manageable toxicity. Preliminary signs of anti-tumor activity in NSCLC have been observed and pharmacodynamic target engagement was demonstrated.

Binimetinib, Encorafenib, and Cetuximab Triplet Therapy for Patients With BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Safety Lead-In Results From the Phase III BEACON Colorectal Cancer Study.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and preliminary efficacy of selective combination targeted therapy for BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the safety lead-in phase of the open-label, randomized, three-arm, phase III BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02928224; European Union Clinical Trials Register identifier: EudraCT2015-005805-35). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Before initiation of the randomized portion of the BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial, 30 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC who had experienced treatment failure with one or two prior regimens were to be recruited to a safety lead-in of encorafenib 300 mg daily, binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, plus standard weekly cetuximab. The primary end point was safety, including the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. Efficacy end points included overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among the 30 treated patients, dose-limiting toxicities occurred in five patients and included serous retinopathy (n = 2), reversible decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (n = 1), and cetuximab-related infusion reactions (n = 2). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (13%), anemia (10%), increased creatine phosphokinase (10%), increased AST (10%), and urinary tract infections (10%). In 29 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant tumors (one patient had a non-BRAF V600E-mutant tumor and was not included in the efficacy analysis), the confirmed overall response rate was 48% (95% CI, 29.4% to 67.5%), median progression-free survival was 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.3 months), and median overall survival was 15.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 months to not reached), with median duration of follow-up of 18.2 months (range, 16.6 to 19.8 months). CONCLUSION: In the safety lead-in, the safety and tolerability of the encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab regimen is manageable and acceptable for initiation of the randomized portion of the study. The observed efficacy is promising compared with available therapies and, if confirmed in the randomized portion of the trial, could establish this regimen as a new standard of care for previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.