Molecular Landscape of BRAF-Mutant NSCLC Reveals an Association Between Clonality and Driver Mutations and Identifies Targetable Non-V600 Driver Mutations.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 4% of NSCLC harbor BRAF mutations, and approximately 50% of these are non-V600 mutations. Treatment of tumors harboring non-V600 mutations is challenging because of functional heterogeneity and lack of knowledge regarding their clinical significance and response to targeted agents. METHODS: We conducted an integrative analysis of BRAF non-V600 mutations using genomic profiles of BRAF-mutant NSCLC from the Guardant360 database. BRAF mutations were categorized by clonality and class (1 and 2: RAS-independent; 3: RAS-dependent). Cell viability assays were performed in Ba/F3 models. Drug screens were performed in NSCLC cell lines. RESULTS: A total of 305 unique BRAF mutations were identified. Missense mutations were most common (276, 90%), and 45% were variants of unknown significance. F468S and N581Y were identified as novel activating mutations. Class 1 to 3 mutations had higher clonality than mutations of unknown class (p < 0.01). Three patients were treated with MEK with or without BRAF inhibitors. Patients harboring G469V and D594G mutations did not respond, whereas a patient with the L597R mutation had a durable response. Trametinib with or without dabrafenib, LXH254, and lifirafenib had more potent inhibition of BRAF non-V600-mutant NSCLC cell lines than other MEK, BRAF, and ERK inhibitors, comparable with the inhibition of BRAF V600E cell line. CONCLUSIONS: In BRAF-mutant NSCLC, clonality is higher in known functional mutations and may allow identification of variants of unknown significance that are more likely to be oncogenic drivers. Our data indicate that certain non-V600 mutations are responsive to MEK and BRAF inhibitors. This integration of genomic profiling and drug sensitivity may guide the treatment for BRAF-mutant NSCLC.

Sarcopenia: A Time for Action. An SCWD Position Paper.

The term sarcopenia was introduced in 1988. The original definition was a "muscle loss" of the appendicular muscle mass in the older people as measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). In 2010, the definition was altered to be low muscle mass together with low muscle function and this was agreed upon as reported in a number of consensus papers. The Society of Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders supports the recommendations of more recent consensus conferences, i.e. that rapid screening, such as with the SARC-F questionnaire, should be utilized with a formal diagnosis being made by measuring grip strength or chair stand together with DXA estimation of appendicular muscle mass (indexed for height2). Assessments of the utility of ultrasound and creatine dilution techniques are ongoing. Use of ultrasound may not be easily reproducible. Primary sarcopenia is aging associated (mediated) loss of muscle mass. Secondary sarcopenia (or disease-related sarcopenia) has predominantly focused on loss of muscle mass without the emphasis on muscle function. Diseases that can cause muscle wasting (i.e. secondary sarcopenia) include malignant cancer, COPD, heart failure, and renal failure and others. Management of sarcopenia should consist of resistance exercise in combination with a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 g/kg/day. There is insufficient evidence that vitamin D and anabolic steroids are beneficial. These recommendations apply to both primary (age-related) sarcopenia and secondary (disease related) sarcopenia. Secondary sarcopenia also needs appropriate treatment of the underlying disease. It is important that primary care health professionals become aware of and make the diagnosis of age-related and disease-related sarcopenia. It is important to address the risk factors for sarcopenia, particularly low physical activity and sedentary behavior in the general population, using a life-long approach. There is a need for more clinical research into the appropriate measurement for muscle mass and the management of sarcopenia. Accordingly, this position statement provides recommendations on the management of sarcopenia and how to progress the knowledge and recognition of sarcopenia.

Developments in Molecular Testing and Biosimilars.

Molecular testing and biosimilars offer the potential for increased access to targeted treatment options and reduction in healthcare costs, but come with significant challenges in ensuring patient access to innovation in cancer care while maintaining safe, effective, ethical, and affordable treatment options. As providers, payers, patients, and the larger healthcare systems become inundated with a wide variety of molecular diagnostics and an increased number of biosimilars coming to market, it will be important to understand regulatory guidance and policy implications relating to the appropriateness of molecular testing and the clinical use of biosimilars in cancer care. In September 2016, NCCN hosted the Molecular Testing and Biosimilars Policy Summit to address the challenges, issues, and opportunities in both the molecular testing and biosimilar landscapes. Keynote presentations and panelists further discussed the status and future of molecular testing and biosimilars within the oncology space, as well as patient access and education needs moving forward.

Maintenance Sunitinib following Initial Platinum-Based Combination Chemotherapy in Advanced-Stage IIIB/IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study-CALGB 30607 (Alliance).

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy of maintenance sunitinib after first-line chemotherapy for stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. METHODS: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30607 trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study that enrolled patients without progression after four cycles of first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Bevacizumab was allowed only during the four cycles of chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive sunitinib, 37.5 mg/d, or placebo and were treated until unacceptable adverse event(s), progression, or death. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 210 patients were enrolled, randomized, and included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Ten patients did not receive maintenance therapy (four who received placebo and six who received sunitinib). Grade 3/4 adverse events affecting more than 5% of the patients were fatigue (25%), thrombocytopenia (12%), hypertension (12%), rash (11%), mucositis (11%), neutropenia (7%), and anemia (6%) for sunitinib and none for placebo. There were three grade 5 events in patients receiving sunitinib (one pulmonary hemorrhage, one other pulmonary event, and one death not associated with a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events term) and two grade 5 events in patients receiving placebo (one other pulmonary event and one thromboembolism). Median PFS was 4.3 months for sunitinib and 2.6 months for placebo (hazard ratio = 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.82, p = 0.0006). Median overall survival was 11.7 months for sunitinib versus 12.1 months for placebo (hazard ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.31, p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance sunitinib was safe and improved PFS as maintenance therapy in stage IIIB/IV NSCLC but had no impact on overall survival. There is no room for future investigations of sunitinib in this setting.