Molecularly matched targeted therapy: a promising approach for refractory metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Only a fraction of patients with metastatic melanoma derive durable benefit from approved treatments. The clinical impact of personalized medicine strategies for melanoma, apart from BRAF, NRAS, or CKIT targeting, has rarely been reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By means of the Group of Cutaneous Oncology of the French Society of Dermatology, we retrospectively included all patients with advanced melanoma aged 18 years and older for whom molecular testing identified one or more actionable molecular alterations and who accordingly received molecularly matched therapy. We excluded patients with only BRAF, NRAS, or CKIT alterations and patients who received molecularly matched therapy for less than 15 days. RESULTS: We included 26 patients with a median follow-up of 8 months (1-54), a median age of 63 years (24-89), and a sex ratio of 2.7. These patients had been heavily pretreated, and 64% had elevated LDH levels. The disease control rate was 38%, with 4 cases of partial response (overall response rate: 15%) and 6 of stable disease for at least 6 months. The median duration of treatment was 3.1 months (0.9-13.5). Among patients with disease control, the median duration of control was 6.6 months (2.6-13.5) and 3 cases were ongoing at the end of the study. Patients with controlled disease had GNA11, MAP2K1, FYCO1-RAF1, HRAS, ATM, CCND1, MDM2/CDK4, and CDKN2A/NRAS alterations. CONCLUSIONS: High-throughput sequencing followed by matched targeted therapy is a promising approach for patients with advanced melanoma refractory to approved treatments.

Clinical Impact of High Throughput Sequencing on Liquid Biopsy in Advanced Solid Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer therapies targeting actionable molecular alterations (AMA) have developed, but the clinical routine impact of high-throughput molecular profiling remains unclear. We present a monocentric experience of molecular profiling based on liquid biopsy in patients with cancer. METHODS: Patients included had solid cancer and underwent cfDNA genomic profiling with FoudationOne Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) test, analyzing 324 genes. Primary endpoint was to describe patients with an AMA for whom clinical decisions were impacted by F1LCDx test results. RESULTS: 191 patients were included, mostly with lung cancer (46%). An AMA was found in 52%. The most common molecular alterations were: TP53 (52%), KRAS (14%) and DNMT3 (11%). The most common AMA were: CHEK2 (10%), PIK3CA (9%), ATM (7%). There was no difference in progression-free survival (2.66 months vs. 3.81 months, p = 0.17), overall survival (5.3 months vs. 7.1 months, p = 0.64), or PFS2/PFS1 ratio ≥ 1.3 (20% vs. 24%, p = 0.72) between patients receiving a molecularly matched therapy (MMT) or a non-MMT, respectively. Patients with a MMT had an overall response rate of 19% and a disease control of 32%. CONCLUSIONS: Routine cfDNA molecular profiling is feasible and can lead to the access of targeted therapies. However, no notable benefit in patient's outcomes was shown in this unselected pan-cancer study.

Therapeutic potential of trametinib to inhibit the mutagenesis by inactivating the protein kinase pathway in non-small cell lung cancer.

Introduction:Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is known to be involved in the tumorigenesis of cancer cells including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and kinases involved in this pathway are frequently mutated. The development of new targeted therapies in cancer has led to the evaluation of MEK-inhibitors. Areas covered: This article reviews different studies using trametinib alone, in combination with other targeted therapies or associated with other non-targeted therapies in NSCLC, with a focus on KRAS mutant and BRAF mutant NSCLC. Expert commentary: Trametinib demonstrated activity in association with a BRAF inhibitor when BRAF was mutated. The combination of trametinib and dabrafenib has been approved for this population of BRAF mutant NSCLC patients. For KRAS mutant NSCLC, the combination of trametinib with chemotherapy has showed promising results and should be further assessed. Several clinical trials are ongoing, assessing trametinib in combination with other targeted therapies. In addition, preclinical studies suggest a synergistic effect of trametinib in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors and such combinations should be studied in clinical trials.

Association Between Immune-related Adverse Events and Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are available for first- and further lines of treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These treatments are associated with adverse events called immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). The incidence, diagnosis, and treatment of IRAEs are quite acknowledged; however, the link between IRAEs and the efficacy of ICIs requires further clarification. The objectives of this study were to assess the association between IRAEs incidence and severity and ICIs efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: In this retrospective study, clinical, biological, treatment, and outcome data were collected from patients with advanced NSCLC who received at least 1 cycle of ICIs from April 2013 to February 2017. The primary endpoint was to assess the association of IRAEs incidence with overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were the association of IRAEs with progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). RESULTS: Overall, 270 patients were studied. The median OS was 14 months, median PFS was 2.6 months, ORR was 13%, and DCR was 51%. OS, PFS, and ORR were significantly better for patients with IRAEs compared with patients with no IRAEs, translating to median OS not reached versus 8.21 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-0.46; P < .001); PFS was 5.2 versus 1.97 months (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.57; P < .001); and ORR was 212.9% versus 5.7% (odds ratio, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.18-11.05; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This report presents the largest case series showing longer OS and PFS and better ORR when IRAEs occurred in a population of patients with advanced NSCLC treated with ICIs. The biological background for this phenomenon is being explored prospectively.

Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in KRAS-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

INTRODUCTION: KRAS mutation is the most frequent molecular alteration found in advanced NSCLC; it is associated with a poor prognosis without available targeted therapy. Treatment options for NSCLC have been recently enriched by the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and data about its efficacy in patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC are discordant. This study assessed the routine efficacy of ICIs in advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. METHODS: In this retrospective study, clinical data were extracted from the medical records of patients with advanced NSCLC treated with ICIs and with available molecular analysis between April 2013 and June 2017. Analysis of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was performed if exploitable tumor material was available. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients with ICI-treated (in the first line or more) advanced NSCLC (all histological subgroups) who were treated with ICIs (anti-programmed death 1, anti-PD-L1, or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 antibodies), including 162 (57.4%) with KRAS mutation, 27 (9.6%) with other mutations, and 93 (33%) with a wild-type phenotype, were identified. PD-L1 analysis was available for 128 patients (45.4%), of whom 45.3% and 19.5% had PD-L1 expression of 1% or more and 50%, respectively (49.5% and 21.2%, respectively, in the case of the 85 patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC). No significant difference was seen in terms of objective response rates, progression-free survival, or overall survival between KRAS-mutant NSCLC and other NSCLC. No significant differences in overall survival or progression-free survival were observed between the major KRAS mutation subtypes (G12A, G12C, G12D, G12V, and G13C). In KRAS-mutant NSCLC, unlike in non-KRAS-mutant NSCLC, the efficacy of ICIs is consistently higher, even though not statistically significant, for patients with PD-L1 expression in 1% or more of tumor cells than for those with PD-L1 expression in less than 1% of tumor cells, and this finding is especially true when PD-L1 expression is high (PD-L1 expression ≥50%). CONCLUSION: For patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC (all mutational subtypes), the efficacy of ICI is similar to that for patients with other types of NSCLC. PD-L1 expression seems to be more relevant for predicting the efficacy of ICIs in KRAS-mutant NSCLC than it is in other types of NSCLC.

MEDI 4736 (durvalumab) in non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are now a therapeutic option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. ICI, such as the PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab and the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab, have already been marketed for the treatment of pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC. Other notable PD-L1 inhibitors under development include avelumab and durvalumab. Areas covered: This article reviews literature on durvalumab development, from the preclinical data to the results of phase III clinical trials, whether published or presented at international scientific conferences. Ongoing clinical trials were also reviewed. Expert opinion: Early phase trials of durvalumab monotherapy (and in combination) have demonstrated activity in advanced NSCLC patients and it has demonstrated a good safety profile. The authors believe that durvalumab will likely play an important role in future treatment strategies for NSCLC. The PACIFIC trial assessing durvalumab after standard chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced NSCLC has already met its primary endpoint and the potential of durvalumab will be reinforced if phase III randomized studies of first-line (MYSTIC trial) and second or subsequent (ARCTIC trial) lines of therapy demonstrate superiority over the current standard of care.