Characterization of discordance between mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability testing may prevent inappropriate treatment with immunotherapy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with cancer are treated based on their tumor molecular profile with approved targeted and immunotherapies outside the labeled indication. Importantly, patients undergo a tumor biopsy for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) which allows for a WGS-based evaluation of routine diagnostics. Notably, we observed that not all biopsies of patients with dMMR/MSI-positive tumors as determined by routine diagnostics were classified as microsatellite-unstable by subsequent WGS. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the discordance rate between routine dMMR/MSI diagnostics and WGS and to further characterize discordant cases. We assessed patients enrolled in DRUP with dMMR/MSI-positive tumors identified by routine diagnostics, who were treated with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and for whom WGS data were available. Patient and tumor characteristics, study treatment outcomes, and material from routine care were retrieved from the patient medical records and via Palga (the Dutch Pathology Registry), and were compared with WGS results. Initially, discordance between routine dMMR/MSI diagnostics and WGS was observed in 13 patients (13/121; 11%). The majority of these patients did not benefit from ICB (11/13; 85%). After further characterization, we found that in six patients (5%) discordance was caused by dMMR tumors that did not harbor an MSI molecular phenotype by WGS. In six patients (5%), discordance was false due to the presence of multiple primary tumors (n = 3, 2%) and misdiagnosis of dMMR status by immunohistochemistry (n = 3, 2%). In one patient (1%), the exact underlying cause of discordance could not be identified. Thus, in this group of patients limited to those initially diagnosed with dMMR/MSI tumors by current routine diagnostics, the true assay-based discordance rate between routine dMMR/MSI-positive diagnostics and WGS was 5%. To prevent inappropriate ICB treatment, clinicians and pathologists should be aware of the risk of multiple primary tumors and the limitations of different tests. © 2024 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Toxicity-induced modification of treatment: what is in a name?

Severe treatment-induced toxicities can have clinical consequences such as hospitalisation or treatment modifications, which in turn may deteriorate the prognosis of patients with cancer. Identification of determinants of treatment-induced toxicities is essential to develop strategies that promote therapy compliance and enhance the quality of life. Whereas toxicities are systematically recorded and graded per protocol in most clinical trials, observational studies often depend on retrospective data collection from medical records collected as standard care. Existing population-based or patient cohorts are a valuable source of information, even when relying on retrospective data collection, but comparisons across studies are hampered by a lack of a uniform definition for toxicity outcomes. We propose a new standardised approach to summarise toxicities in observational studies that rely on medical records for outcome assessment. We recommend the term 'toxicity-induced modification of treatment' (TIMT) to cover all toxicities that are responsible for changes in a planned treatment schedule. We define a TIMT as (i) a dose reduction, (ii) temporary interruption, (iii) discontinuation of therapy or (iv) an unanticipated switch to another regimen, as a result of treatment-induced toxicities and not because of progressive disease. This definition will provide clinically relevant information, especially when data on specific adverse events and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grades are not uniformly available. Implementation of this definition empowers comparisons across studies, facilitates communication between clinicians and researchers and will allow new research questions in this active field of research.

Experimental treatment of NRAS-mutated neurocutaneous melanocytosis with MEK162, a MEK-inhibitor.

Neurocutaneous melanosis (NCM) is a rare congenital disorder characterized by the association of large and/or multiple congenital melanocytic nevi (CMN) of the skin with melanocytic lesions of the leptomeninges, including melanocytosis. Leptomeningeal melanocytosis carries a poor prognosis once neurological symptoms develop. Despite surgery, which is often not radical, few other treatment options exist. Recently, it was demonstrated that early embryonic, post-zygotic somatic mutations in the NRAS gene are implicated in the pathogenesis of NCM.In this report, we present a 13-year-old boy with NCM and progressive symptomatic leptomeningeal melanocytosis. A somatic NRASQ61K mutation was present in both CMN as well as the melanocytosis. Despite repeated surgery, the patient showed clinical progression. Therefore, treatment with MEK162, a MEK inhibitor, was started on compassionate use base. The patient died only five days later, i.e. too early to expect a clinical effect of MEK162 therapy. We therefore studied the effect of MEK162 at the protein level in the leptomeningeal tumor by immunohistochemical and Western Blot analyses using Ki67 and pERK antibodies. We observed lower MIB-1 expression and lower pERK expression in the post-treatment samples compared to pre-treatment, suggesting a potential effect of MEK inhibiting therapy. Further studies are needed to determine whether MEK inhibitors can effectively target NRAS-mutated symptomatic NCM, a rare but potentially fatal disease.

MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma harbouring Val600 BRAF mutations benefit from treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, no targeted treatments exist for patients with BRAF wild-type tumours, including those with NRAS mutations. We aimed to assess the use of MEK162, a small-molecule MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with NRAS-mutated or Val600 BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. METHODS: In our open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study, we assigned patients with NRAS-mutated or BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma to one of three treatment arms on the basis of mutation status. Patients were enrolled at university hospitals or private cancer centres in Europe and the USA. The three arms were: twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for NRAS-mutated melanoma, twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma, and twice-daily MEK162 60 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma. Previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors was permitted, but previous MEK inhibitor therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective response (ie, a complete response or confirmed partial response). We report data for the 45 mg groups. We assessed clinical activity in all patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 and in patients assessable for response (with two available CT scans). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01320085, and is currently recruiting additional patients with NRAS mutations (based on a protocol amendment). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2011, and Jan 17, 2012, we enrolled 71 patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 45 mg. By Feb 29, 2012 (data cutoff), median follow-up was 3·3 months (range 0·6-8·7; IQR 2·2-5·0). No patients had a complete response. Six (20%) of 30 patients with NRAS-mutated melanoma had a partial response (three confirmed) as did eight (20%) of 41 patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma (two confirmed). The most frequent adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (18 [60%] patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and 15 [37%] patients with the BRAF-mutated melanoma), rash (six [20%] and 16 [39%]), peripheral oedema (ten [33%] and 14 [34%]), facial oedema (nine [30%] and seven [17%]), diarrhoea (eight [27%] and 15 [37%]), and creatine phosphokinase increases (11 [37%] and nine [22%]). Increased creatine phosphokinase was the most common grade 3-4 adverse event (seven [23%] and seven [17%]). Four patients had serious adverse events (two per arm), which included diarrhoea, dehydration, acneiform dermatitis, general physical deterioration, irregular heart rate, malaise, and small intestinal perforation. No deaths occurred from treatment-related causes. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, MEK162 is the first targeted therapy to show activity in patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and might offer a new option for a cancer with few effective treatments. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.