ABSTRACT
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%).
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors , Melanoma , Mutation , Protein Kinase Inhibitors , Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf , Vorinostat , Humans , Melanoma/drug therapy , Melanoma/genetics , Melanoma/pathology , Melanoma/mortality , Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf/genetics , Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf/antagonists & inhibitors , Vorinostat/administration & dosage , Vorinostat/pharmacology , Female , Male , Middle Aged , Aged , Adult , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors/pharmacology , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors/pharmacokinetics , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Proof of Concept Study , Drug Resistance, Neoplasm/genetics , Drug Resistance, Neoplasm/drug effects , Aged, 80 and overABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Due to the abundant usage of chemotherapy in young triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, the unbiased prognostic value of BRCA1-related biomarkers in this population remains unclear. In addition, whether BRCA1-related biomarkers modify the well-established prognostic value of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) is unknown. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients according to BRCA1 status, taking sTILs into account. METHODS: We included 485 Dutch women diagnosed with node-negative TNBC under age 40 between 1989 and 2000. During this period, these women were considered low-risk and did not receive chemotherapy. BRCA1 status, including pathogenic germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCA1m), somatic BRCA1 mutation (sBRCA1m), and tumor BRCA1 promoter methylation (BRCA1-PM), was assessed using DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. sTILs were assessed according to the international guideline. Patients' outcomes were compared using Cox regression and competing risk models. RESULTS: Among the 399 patients with BRCA1 status, 26.3% had a gBRCA1m, 5.3% had a sBRCA1m, 36.6% had tumor BRCA1-PM, and 31.8% had BRCA1-non-altered tumors. Compared to BRCA1-non-alteration, gBRCA1m was associated with worse overall survival (OS) from the fourth year after diagnosis (adjusted HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.18-3.75), and this association attenuated after adjustment for second primary tumors. Every 10% sTIL increment was associated with 16% higher OS (adjusted HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) in gBRCA1m, sBRCA1m, or BRCA1-non-altered patients and 31% higher OS in tumor BRCA1-PM patients. Among the 66 patients with tumor BRCA1-PM and ≥ 50% sTILs, we observed excellent 15-year OS (97.0%; 95% CI, 92.9-100%). Conversely, among the 61 patients with gBRCA1m and < 50% sTILs, we observed poor 15-year OS (50.8%; 95% CI, 39.7-65.0%). Furthermore, gBRCA1m was associated with higher (adjusted subdistribution HR, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.29-7.13) and tumor BRCA1-PM with lower (adjusted subdistribution HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.95) incidence of second primary tumors, compared to BRCA1-non-alteration. CONCLUSIONS: Although both gBRCA1m and tumor BRCA1-PM alter BRCA1 gene transcription, they are associated with different outcomes in young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients. By combining sTILs and BRCA1 status for risk classification, we were able to identify potential subgroups in this population to intensify and optimize adjuvant treatment.