A Proof-of-Concept Study of Sequential Treatment with the HDAC Inhibitor Vorinostat following BRAF and MEK Inhibitors in BRAFV600-Mutated Melanoma.

PURPOSE: The 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 resistant tumor cells. We aimed to assess the antitumor activity of sequential treatment with vorinostat following BRAFi/MEKi in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma who progressed after initial response to BRAFi/MEKi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with BRAFi/MEKi-resistant BRAFV600-mutated melanoma were treated with vorinostat 360 mg once daily for 14 days followed by BRAFi/MEKi. The primary endpoint was an objective response rate of progressive lesions of at least 30% according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics of vorinostat, and translational molecular analyses using ctDNA and tumor biopsies. RESULTS: Of the 26 patients with progressive BRAFi/MEKi-resistant BRAFV600-mutated melanoma receiving treatment with vorinostat, 22 patients were evaluable for response. The objective response rate was 9%, with one complete response for 31.2 months and one partial response for 14.9 months. Median progression-free survival and overall survival 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 the 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 BRAFi/MEKi-resistant BRAFV600-mutated melanoma is well tolerated. Although the primary endpoint of this study was not met, durable antitumor responses were observed in a minority of patients (9%).

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 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.

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.