A Retrospective Evaluation of Vemurafenib as Treatment for BRAF‐Mutant Melanoma Brain Metastases

Background.

RAF inhibitors are an effective therapy for patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and brain metastasis. Efficacy data are derived from clinical studies enriched with physiologically fit patients; therefore, it is of interest to assess the real-world experience of vemurafenib in this population. Tumor-specific genetic variants that influence sensitivity to RAF kinase inhibitors also require investigation.

Methods.

Records of patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and brain metastases who were treated with vemurafenib were reviewed. Clinical data were extracted to determine extracranial and intracranial objective response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. A bait-capture, next-generation sequencing assay was used to identify mutations in pretreatment tumors that could explain primary resistance to vemurafenib.

Results.

Among patients with intracranial disease treated with vemurafenib, 27 were included in survival analyses and 22 patients were assessable for response. The extracranial and intracranial objective response rates were 71% and 50%, respectively. Discordant responses were observed between extracranial and intracranial metastatic sites in 4 of 19 evaluable patients. Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6–7.9); median intracranial PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI: 2.7–7.9), median OS was 7.5 months (95% CI: 4.3–not reached), with a 30.4% 1-year OS rate. Outcomes were influenced by performance status. Vemurafenib was tolerable, although radiation-induced dermatitis occurred in some patients who received whole-brain radiotherapy. Adequate samples for next-generation sequencing analysis were available for seven patients. Melanomas categorized as “poorly sensitive” (≥20% tumor growth, new lesions, or ≤50% shrinkage for <4 months) harbored co-occurring mutations in genes predicted to activate the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-AKT (PI3K-AKT) pathway.

Conclusion.

Vemurafenib is highly active in BRAF-mutant melanoma brain metastases but has limited activity in patients with poor performance status. The safety and efficacy of concurrent radiotherapy and RAF inhibition requires careful clinical evaluation. Combination strategies blocking the MAPK and PI3K-AKT pathway may be warranted in a subset of patients.

Implications for Practice:

Vemurafenib is active for BRAF-mutant intracranial melanoma metastases in an unselected patient population typical of routine oncologic practice. Patients with poor performance status appear to have poor outcomes despite vemurafenib therapy. Preliminary data indicate that co-occurring or secondary alterations in the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-AKT (PI3K-AKT) pathway are involved in resistance to RAF inhibition, thus providing a rationale for dual MAPK and PI3K-AKT pathway inhibition in this patient population.     

Extended Antitumor Response of a BRAF V600E Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma to Vemurafenib

Context

For patients with metastatic papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) refractory to radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment, systemic chemotherapy has limited efficacy. Such tumors frequently harbor BRAF V600E, and this alteration may predict responsiveness to vemurafenib treatment.

Objective

We report a metastatic PTC patient refractory to RAI treatment that underwent genomic profiling by next-generation sequencing. The sole genomic alteration identified was BRAF V600E on a near diploid genome with trisomy 1q. With vemurafenib treatment, the patient experienced a dramatic radiographic and clinical improvement, with the duration of an ongoing antitumor response exceeding 23 months.

Design

Hybridization capture of 3,769 exons of 236 cancer-related genes and the introns of 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer was applied to >50 ng of DNA extracted from a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded biopsy of a lymph node containing metastatic PTC and was sequenced to a high, uniform coverage of ×616.

Results

A BRAF V600E alteration was identified with no other somatic genomic alterations present within a near diploid tumor genome. The patient initially received vemurafenib at 960 mg twice daily that was reduced to 480 mg twice daily due to rash and diarrhea and has experienced an ongoing antitumor response exceeding 23 months by both PET-CT and dedicated CT imaging.

Conclusions

Genomic profiling in metastatic, RAI-refractory PTC can reveal a targetable BRAF V600E alteration without compounding somatic alterations, and such patients may derive a more prolonged benefit from vemurafenib treatment. Prospective clinical trials are ongoing to confirm our preliminary observation.Key words: Papillary thyroid carcinoma, BRAF V600E, Vemurafenib     

BRAFV600E protein expression and outcome from BRAF inhibitor treatment in BRAFV600E metastatic melanoma

Background:

To examine the association between level and patterns of baseline intra-tumoural BRAF^V600E protein expression and clinical outcome of BRAF^V600E melanoma patients treated with selective BRAF inhibitors.

Methods:

Fifty-eight BRAF^V600E metastatic melanoma patients treated with dabrafenib or vemurafenib on clinical trials had pre-treatment tumour BRAF^V600E protein expression immunohistochemically (IHC) assessed using the BRAF V600E mutant-specific antibody VE1. Sections were examined for staining intensity (score 1–3) and percentage of immunoreactive tumour cells, and from this an immunoreactive score (IRS) was derived (intensity × per cent positive/10). The presence of intra-tumoural heterogeneity for BRAF^V600E protein expression was also assessed. BRAF^V600E expression was correlated with RECIST response, time to best response (TTBR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results:

Expression was generally high (median IRS 28 (range 5–30)) and homogeneous (78%). Expression of mutated protein BRAF^V600E as measured by intensity, per cent immunoreactive cells, or IRS did not correlate with RECIST response, TTBR, PFS or OS, including on multivariate analysis. Heterogeneity of staining was seen in 22% of cases and did not correlate with outcome.

Conclusion:

In the current study population, IHC-measured pre-treatment BRAF^V600E protein expression does not predict response or outcome to BRAF inhibitor therapy in BRAF^V600E metastatic melanoma patients.     

BRAFV600E melanoma cells secrete factors that activate stromal fibroblasts and enhance tumourigenicity

Background:

Melanoma, the most lethal form of skin cancer, is responsible for over 80% of all skin cancer deaths and is highly metastatic, readily spreading to the lymph nodes or metastasising to other organs. The frequent genetic mutation found in metastatic melanoma, BRAF^V600E, results in constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway.

Methods:

In this study, we utilised genetically engineered melanoma cell lines and xenograft mouse models to investigate how BRAF^V600E affected cytokine (IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8) and matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) expression in tumour cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.

Results:

We found that BRAF^V600E melanoma cells expressed higher levels of these cytokines and of MMP-1 than wild-type counterparts. Further, conditioned medium from the BRAF^V600E melanoma cells promoted the activation of stromal fibroblasts, inducing expression of SDF-1 and its receptor CXCR4. This increase was mitigated when the conditioned medium was taken from melanoma cells treated with the BRAF^V600E specific inhibitor, vemurafenib.

Conclusions:

Our findings highlight the role of BRAF^V600E in activating the stroma and suggest a mechanistic link between BRAF^V600E and MMP-1 in mediating melanoma progression and in activating adjacent fibroblasts in the tumour microenvironment.     

Vemurafenib pharmacokinetics and its correlation with efficacy and safety in outpatients with advanced <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRAF</Emphasis>-mutated melanoma

Vemurafenib is a BRAF kinase inhibitor approved for first-line treatment of metastatic BRAF ^V600 -mutant melanoma. However, data on the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationship are lacking. The aim of this prospective, multicenter study was to explore the PK/PD relationship for vemurafenib in outpatients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Fifty-nine patients treated with single-agent vemurafenib were prospectively analyzed. Vemurafenib plasma concentration (n?=?159) was measured at days 15, 30, 60, and 90 after treatment initiation. Clinical and biological determinants (including plasma vemurafenib concentration) for efficacy and safety were assessed using Cox's model and multivariate stepwise logistic regression. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 5.0 (95 % confidence interval [95 % CI] 2.0–6.0) and 11.0 (95% CI 7.0–16.0) months, respectively. Twenty-nine patients (49 %) experienced any grade ≥3 toxicity and the most frequent grade ≥2 toxicity was skin rash (37 %). Severe toxicities led to definitive discontinuation in seven patients (12 %). Grade ≥2 skin rash was not statistically associated with better objective response at day 60 (p?=?0.06) and longer PFS (hazard ratio 0.47; 95 % CI 0.21–1.08; p?=?0.075). Grade ≥2 skin rash was statistically increased in patients with ECOG ?≥?1 (odds ratio 4.67; 95 % CI 1.39–15.70; p?=?0.012). Vemurafenib concentration below 40.4 mg/L at day 15 was significantly associated with a shorter PFS (1.5 [0.5–5.5] vs. 4.5 [2–undetermined] months, p?=?0.029). Finally, vemurafenib concentration was significantly greater in patients developing grade ≥2 rash (61.7?±?25.0 vs. 36.3?±?17.9 mg/L, p?<?0.0001). These results suggest that early plasma drug monitoring may help identify outpatients at high risk of non-response or grade ≥?2 skin rash.     

Does Sunscreen Prevent Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Inhibitor–Induced Rash? Results of a Placebo-Controlled Trial from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (N05C4)

Purpose.

Rash occurs in >50% of patients prescribed epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. This study was undertaken to determine whether sunscreen prevents or mitigates these rashes.

Methods.

This placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial enrolled rash-free patients starting an EGFR inhibitor. Patients were randomly assigned to sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 60 applied twice a day for 28 days versus placebo. They were then monitored for rash and quality of life (Skindex-16) during the 4-week intervention and for an additional 4 weeks.

Results.

Fifty-four patients received sunscreen, and 56 received placebo; the arms were balanced at baseline. During the 4-week intervention, physician-reported rash occurred in 38 (78%) and 39 (80%) sunscreen-treated and placebo-exposed patients, respectively (p = 1.00); no significant differences in rash rates emerged over the additional 4 weeks. There were no significant differences in rash severity, and patient-reported outcomes of rash yielded similar conclusions. Adjustment for sun intensity by geographical zone, season, and use of photosensitivity medications did not yield a significant difference in rash across study arms (p = .20). Quality of life scores declined but remained comparable between arms.

Conclusions.

Sunscreen, as prescribed in this trial, did not prevent or attenuate EGFR inhibitor–induced rash.     

Allele frequencies of BRAFV600 mutations in primary melanomas and matched metastases and their relevance for BRAF inhibitor therapy in metastatic melanoma

Background

The detection of BRAFV600 mutations in patients with metastatic melanoma is important because of the availability of BRAF inhibitor therapy. However, the clinical relevance of the frequency of BRAFV600 mutant alleles is unclear.

Patients and Methods

Allele frequencies of BRAFV600 mutations were analyzed by ultra-deep next-generation sequencing in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded melanoma tissue (75 primary melanomas and 88 matched metastases). In a second study, pretreatment specimens from 76 patients who received BRAF inhibitors were retrospectively analyzed, and BRAFV600 allele frequencies were correlated with therapeutic results.

Results

Thirty-five patients had concordantly BRAF-positive and 36 (48%) patients had concordantly BRAF-negative primary melanomas and matched metastases, and four patients had discordant samples with low allele frequencies (3.4–5.2%). Twenty-six of 35 patients with concordant samples had BRAFV600E mutations, three of whom had additional mutations (V600K in two patients and V600R in one) and nine patients had exclusively non-V600E mutations (V600K in eight patients and V600E -c.1799_1800TG > AA- in one patient). The frequency of mutated BRAFV600 alleles was similar in the primary melanoma and matched metastasis in 27/35 patients, but differed by >3-fold in 8/35 of samples. BRAFV600E allele frequencies in pretreatment tumor specimens were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes in 76 patients with metastatic melanoma who were treated with BRAF inhibitors.

Conclusions

BRAFV600 mutation status and allele frequency is consistent in the majority of primary melanomas and matched metastases. A small subgroup of patients has double mutations. BRAFV600 allele frequencies are not correlated with the response to BRAF inhibitors.     

Surprise Questions for Survival Prediction in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

Background.

Predicting the short-term survival in cancer patients is an important issue for patients, family, and oncologists. Although the prognostic accuracy of the surprise question has value in 1-year mortality for cancer patients, the prognostic value for short-term survival has not been formally assessed. The primary aim of the present study was to assess the prognostic value of the surprise question for 7-day and 30-day survival in patients with advanced cancer.

Patients and Methods.

The present multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted in Japan from September 2012 through April 2014, involving 16 palliative care units, 19 hospital-based palliative care teams, and 23 home-based palliative care services.

Results.

We recruited 2,425 patients and included 2,361 for analysis: 912 from hospital-based palliative care teams, 895 from hospital palliative care units, and 554 from home-based palliative care services. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the 7-day survival surprise question were 84.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7%–88.0%), 68.0% (95% CI, 67.3%–68.5%), 30.3% (95% CI, 28.9%–31.5%), and 96.4% (95% CI, 95.5%–97.2%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the 30-day surprise question were 95.6% (95% CI, 94.4%–96.6%), 37.0% (95% CI, 35.9%–37.9%), 57.6% (95% CI, 56.8%–58.2%), and 90.4% (95% CI, 87.7%–92.6%), respectively.

Conclusion.

Surprise questions are useful for screening patients for short survival. However, the high false-positive rates do not allow clinicians to provide definitive prognosis prediction.

Implications for Practice:

The findings of this study indicate that clinicians can screen patients for 7- or 30-day survival using surprise questions with 90% or more sensitivity. Clinicians cannot provide accurate prognosis estimation, and all patients will not always die within the defined periods. The screened patients can be regarded as the subjects to be prepared for approaching death, and proactive discussion would be useful for such patients.     

Safety of vemurafenib in patients with <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRAF</Emphasis><Superscript>V600</Superscript> mutated metastatic melanoma: the Spanish experience

Objectives

Vemurafenib tolerability was assessed in a large, open-label, multicentre study in patients with BRAF ^V600 mutated advanced melanoma. We investigated safety, tolerability and efficacy of vemurafenib in Spanish patients participating in that study.

Methods

Patients with previously treated or treatment-naive, unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV, BRAF ^V600 mutation-positive melanoma received vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or death. The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

301 Spanish patients were included, 70 % with M1c disease, 22 % with brain metastases and 51 % with prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Most frequent adverse events included fatigue (48 %), arthralgia (45 %), rash (41 %), photosensitivity (34 %) and skin neoplasms (21 %). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (52 %), including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (including keratoacanthoma; 16 %), fatigue (6 %) and arthralgia (5 %). The ORR was 28 % (95 % CI 23–34 %). Responses occurred in patients with brain metastases (18 %), elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase (19 %) and poor performance status (15 %), and elderly patients (22 %). Median PFS was 5.8 (95 % CI 5.0–6.4) months; median OS was 10.5 (95 % CI 9.5–13.5) months.

Conclusion

Our results for Spanish patients in the vemurafenib safety study indicate similar efficacy and a comparable safety profile in Spanish patients with no new safety signals compared with the overall population. Clinical benefit was demonstrated in poor-prognosis patients and in those with favourable baseline characteristics, suggesting that poor-prognosis patients may also benefit from vemurafenib treatment.

     

Concordance of predictive markers for EGFR inhibitors in primary tumors and metastases in colorectal cancer: a review

Background.

Currently, only Kirsten rat sarcoma 2 viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutational status is used as a decisional marker for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor therapy in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Concordance of KRAS status between primary tumors and metastases has always been considered to be close to perfect; however, cases of discordance have been reported. The actual rate of concordance of KRAS status remains unclear, as is the same for v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF), phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase CA subunit (PIK3CA), and loss of phosphatase and tensin homologue deleted on chromosome ten (PTEN). Therefore, it is unknown whether it is necessary to perform mutational analysis on metastases instead of on (or in addition to) primary tumors.

Design.

A systematic literature search was conducted to collect all studies testing concordance of KRAS in CRC, and also of BRAF, PIK3CA, and loss of PTEN.

Results.

Twenty-one studies have reported concordance of KRAS, with an overall concordance rate of 93% (range, 76%–100%). Overall concordance rates of studies testing concordance of BRAF status and loss of PTEN were 98% and 68%, respectively. Three studies reported concordance of PIK3CA status (range, 89%–94%).

Conclusion.

Though discordance of KRAS status does occur, it is uncommon. When considering the downsides of testing metastatic tissue in all patients along with the low incidence of discordance, we conclude that that testing the primary tumor (or whatever tissue available) is sufficient for clinical decision making on EGFR inhibitor therapy.     

The combination of axitinib followed by paclitaxel/carboplatin yields extended survival in advanced BRAF wild-type melanoma: results of a clinical/correlative prospective phase II clinical trial

Background:

Simultaneous chemotherapy with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition has not shown additional benefit over chemotherapy alone in advanced melanoma. We tested administration of the potent VEGF inhibitor axitinib followed by paclitaxel/carboplatin to determine whether enhanced tumour proliferation during axitinib withdrawal leads to sustained chemosensitivity.

Methods:

We conducted a prospective phase II trial in metastatic melanoma patients with ECOG performance status 0–1 and normal organ function. Axitinib 5 mg PO b.i.d. was taken on days 1–14 of each 21-day treatment cycle, and carboplatin (AUC=5) with paclitaxel (175 mg m⁻²) was administered on day 1 starting with cycle 2. 3′-Deoxy-3′-¹⁸F-fluorothymidine (¹⁸F-FLT)-PET scans were performed in five patients to assess tumour proliferation on days 1, 14, 17, and 20 of cycle 1. Molecular profiling for BRAF was performed for all patients with cutaneous, acral, or mucosal melanoma.

Results:

The treatment was well tolerated. The most common grade 3 AEs were hypertension, neutropenia, and anaemia. Grade 4 non-haematologic AEs were not observed. Four of five patients completing ¹⁸F-FLT-PET scans showed increases (23–92%) in SUV values during the axitinib holiday. Of 36 evaluable patients, there were 8 confirmed PRs by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Overall, 20 patients had SD and 8 had PD as the best response. The median PFS was 8.7 months and the median overall survival was 14.0 months. Five BRAF^V600E/K patients had significantly worse PFS than patients without these mutations.

Conclusions:

Axitinib followed by carboplatin and paclitaxel was well tolerated and effective in BRAF wild-type metastatic melanoma. 3′-Deoxy-3′-¹⁸F-fluorothymidine-PET scans showed increased proliferation during axitinib withdrawal.     

Optimising the combination dosing strategy of abemaciclib and vemurafenib in BRAF-mutated melanoma xenograft tumours

Background:

Resistance to BRAF inhibition is a major cause of treatment failure for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma patients. Abemaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, overcomes this resistance in xenograft tumours and offers a promising drug combination. The present work aims to characterise the quantitative pharmacology of the abemaciclib/vemurafenib combination using a semimechanistic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling approach and to identify an optimum dosing regimen for potential clinical evaluation.

Methods:

A PK/biomarker model was developed to connect abemaciclib/vemurafenib concentrations to changes in MAPK and cell cycle pathway biomarkers in A375 BRAF-mutated melanoma xenografts. Resultant tumour growth inhibition was described by relating (i) MAPK pathway inhibition to apoptosis, (ii) mitotic cell density to tumour growth and, under resistant conditions, (iii) retinoblastoma protein inhibition to cell survival.

Results:

The model successfully described vemurafenib/abemaciclib-mediated changes in MAPK pathway and cell cycle biomarkers. Initial tumour shrinkage by vemurafenib, acquisition of resistance and subsequent abemaciclib-mediated efficacy were successfully captured and externally validated. Model simulations illustrate the benefit of intermittent vemurafenib therapy over continuous treatment, and indicate that continuous abemaciclib in combination with intermittent vemurafenib offers the potential for considerable tumour regression.

Conclusions:

The quantitative pharmacology of the abemaciclib/vemurafenib combination was successfully characterised and an optimised, clinically-relevant dosing strategy was identified.     

Fine-needle aspiration biopsy versus core-needle biopsy in diagnosing lung cancer: a systematic review

Background

Lung cancer leads cancer-related mortality in the world. The objective of the present systematic review was to compare fine-needle aspiration biopsy (fnab) with core-needle biopsy (cnb) for diagnostic characteristics and yields for diagnosing lung cancer in patients with lung lesions.

Methods

The medline and embase databases (from January 1, 1990, to September 14, 2009), the Cochrane Library (to Issue 4, 2009), and selected guideline Web sites were searched for relevant articles.

Results

For overall diagnostic characteristics (benign vs. malignant) of fnab and cnb, the ranges of sensitivity were 81.3%–90.8% and 85.7–97.4% respectively; of specificity, 75.4%–100.0% and 88.6%–100.0%; and of accuracy, 79.7%–91.8% and 89.0%–96.9%. For specific diagnostic characteristics of fnab and cnb (identifying the histologic subtype of malignancies or the specific benign diagnoses), the ranges of sensitivity were 56.3%–86.5% and 56.5–88.7% respectively; of specificity, 6.7%–57.1% and 52.4%–100.0%; and of accuracy, 40.4%–81.2% and 66.7%–93.2%. Compared with fnab, cnb did not result in a higher complication rate (pneumothorax or hemoptysis). No study has yet compared the diagnostic yields of fnab and of cnb for molecular predictive-marker studies in patients with lung lesions.

Discussion and Conclusions

The evidence is currently insufficient to support a difference between fnab and cnb in identifying lung malignancies in patients with lung lesions. Compared with fnab, cnb might have a higher specificity to diagnose specific benign lesions. Well-designed, good-quality studies comparing fnab with cnb for diagnostic characteristics and yields in diagnosing lung cancer should be encouraged.     

Correlation of BRAF and NRAS mutation status with outcome,site of distant metastasis and response to chemotherapy in metastatic melanoma

Background:

The prognostic significance of BRAF and NRAS mutations in metastatic melanoma patients remains uncertain, with several studies reporting conflicting results, often biased by the inclusion of patients treated with BRAF and MEK (MAPK) inhibitors. We therefore interrogated a historical cohort of patients free of the confounding influence of MAPK inhibitor therapy.

Methods:

Patients with available archival tissue first diagnosed with metastatic melanoma between 2002 and 2006 were analysed. Mutational analysis was performed using the OncoCarta Panel. Patient characteristics, treatment outcome and survival were correlated with BRAF/NRAS mutation status.

Results:

In 193 patients, 92 (48%) melanomas were BRAF-mutant, 39 (20%) were NRAS-mutant and 62 (32%) were wild-type for BRAF/NRAS mutations (wt). There was no difference in response to chemotherapy based on mutation status (35–37%). The distant disease-free interval (DDFI) was significantly shorter in patients with wt melanoma (27.9 months vs 35.1 for BRAF and 49.1 for NRAS) although this was not significant in multivariate analysis. Survival from stage IV melanoma diagnosis was not significantly different based on mutation status. The DDFI was significantly shorter in patients with BRAF^V600K/R versus BRAF^V600E melanoma in univariate and multivariate analyses.

Conclusions:

BRAF and NRAS mutation status does not influence survival in metastatic melanoma.     

Polyclonality of BRAF mutations in primary melanoma and the selection of mutant alleles during progression

Background:

Oncogenic BRAF mutation had been considered to be a founder event in the formation of melanocytic tumours; however, we recently argued against this notion by showing marked polyclonality of BRAF mutations in acquired melanocytic nevi (Lin et al, J Natl Cancer Inst., 2009; 101:1423–7). Here, we tested whether similar heterogeneity of BRAF mutations exists in primary melanomas.

Methods:

We isolated and sequenced single melanoma cells from five primary melanoma tissues using antibodies against human high-molecular-weight melanoma-associated antigen. We also examined 10 primary melanomas by the sensitive Mutector assay detecting the BRAF^V600E mutation, as well as by cloning and sequencing of separated alleles. Furthermore, we estimated the frequency of BRAF mutant alleles in paired samples of primary tumour and recurrence or metastasis in three patients.

Results:

Single-cell mutation analyses revealed that four of five primary melanomas contained both BRAF-wild-type and BRAF-mutant tumour cells. Tumour heterogeneity in terms of BRAF mutations was also shown in 8 of 10 primary melanomas. Selection of BRAF mutant alleles during progression was demonstrated in all the three patients.

Conclusion:

Acquisition of a BRAF mutation is not a founder event, but may be one of the multiple clonal events in melanoma development, which is selected for during the progression.     

Detection of BRAF mutations in the tumour and serum of patients enrolled in the AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) advanced melanoma phase II study

Background:

This study investigated the potential clinical utility of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) as a source of BRAF mutation detection in patients enrolled into a phase II study of AZD6244, a specific MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced melanoma.

Methods:

BRAF mutations were detected using Amplification Refractory Mutation System allele-specific PCR. BRAF mutation status was assessed in serum-derived cfDNA from 126 patients enrolled into the study and from 94 matched tumour samples.

Results:

Of 94 tumour samples, 45 (47.9%) were found to be BRAF mutation positive (BRAF+). Serum-derived cfDNA was BRAF+ in 33 of 126 (26.2%) samples, including in five samples for which tumour data were unavailable. Of BRAF+ tumours, 25 of 45 (55.6%) were BRAF+ in cfDNA. In three cases in which the tumour was negative, cfDNA was BRAF+. Progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with BRAF+ tumour and cfDNA was not significantly different compared with tumour BRAF+ but cfDNA BRAF-negative patients, indicating that cfDNA BRAF detection is not associated with poorer prognosis on PFS in stage III/IV advanced melanoma.

Conclusions:

These data demonstrate the feasibility of BRAF mutation detection in cfDNA of patients with advanced melanoma. Future studies should aim to incorporate BRAF mutation testing in cfDNA to further validate this biomarker for patient selection.     

Phase II Trial of Nilotinib in Patients With Metastatic Malignant Melanoma Harboring KIT Gene Aberration: A Multicenter Trial of Korean Cancer Study Group (UN10‐06)

Background.

KIT has been suggested to be a potential therapeutic target for malignant melanoma. We evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of the KIT inhibitor nilotinib in metastatic melanoma patients harboring KIT gene mutations or amplifications.

Methods.

We conducted a phase II multicenter trial of nilotinib in metastatic malignant melanoma with KIT mutations or amplifications. Patients received 400 mg oral nilotinib twice daily. The primary endpoint was response rate, and if seven or more responders were observed from the cumulative 36 patients, nilotinib would be considered worthy of further testing in this study population.

Results.

Between October 2009 and June 2013, 176 patients underwent molecular screening for KIT gene aberrations, and 42 patients harboring KIT gene mutations and/or amplification were enrolled in the study. Overall, 25 (59.5%), 15 (35.7%), and 2 (4.8%) patients had KIT mutations, KIT amplifications, and both KIT mutations and amplification, respectively. Of the 42 enrolled patients, 1 patient achieved complete response, 6 patients achieved partial response, and 17 patients achieved stable disease, resulting in an overall response rate of 16.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.4%−28.0%) and a disease control rate of 57.1% (95% CI: 42.1%−72.1%). The median duration of response was 34 weeks (range: 5–55 weeks). Of the 7 responders, 6 patients had KIT mutations (exon 11: 5 patients; exon 17: 1 patient), and 1 patient had KIT amplification only.

Conclusion.

Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint of response rate, nilotinib showed durable response in a subset of metastatic melanoma patients with specific KIT mutations.

Implications for Practice:

KIT aberration can be detected in a subset of metastatic melanoma patients. This phase II trial showed that nilotinib demonstrates durable response in a subset of patients with KIT mutations. The safety profile was very tolerable. This study suggests that a KIT inhibitor may benefit a small subset of metastatic melanoma patients with KIT mutations.     

Circulating Tumor DNA Measurement by Picoliter Droplet-Based Digital PCR and Vemurafenib Plasma Concentrations in Patients with Advanced <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRAF-</Emphasis>Mutated Melanoma

Background

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been reported as a prognostic marker in melanoma. In

Objective

We aimed to investigate the relationship between vemurafenib plasma concentrations and the ctDNA plasma concentration during follow-up of

Patients and Methods

Eleven patients treated with single-agent vemurafenib for advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma were analyzed in an exploratory monocentric study. The vemurafenib plasma concentration was measured by liquid chromatography. ctDNA was extracted from plasma samples and the ctDNA concentration was evaluated using picoliter droplet-based digital PCR with Taqman^® detection probes targeting the BRAF p.V600E/K mutation and wild-type BRAF sequences.

Results

At baseline, plasma ctDNA was detectable in 72% (n = 8/11) of patients and the ctDNA concentration decreased in 88% of these patients (p = 0.026). The ctDNA concentration at baseline was associated with overall survival (hazard ratio = 2.61, 95% CI 1.04–6.56; p = 0.04).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the relevance of vemurafenib plasma monitoring during the follow-up of metastatic melanoma patients. Plasma drug monitoring and ctDNA concentrations could be combined to monitor tumor evolution in melanoma patients treated with anti-

Open image in new window

     

Detecting BRAF Mutations in Formalin-Fixed Melanoma: Experiences with Two State-of-the-Art Techniques

Background

Melanoma is characterized by a high frequency of BRAF mutations. It is unknown if the BRAF mutation status has any predictive value for therapeutic approaches such as angiogenesis inhibition.

Patients and Methods

We used 2 methods to analyze the BRAF mutation status in 52 of 62 melanoma patients. Method 1 (mutation-specific real-time PCR) specifically detects the most frequent BRAF mutations, V600E and V600K. Method 2 (denaturing gel gradient electrophoresis and direct sequencing) identifies any mutations affecting exons 11 and 15.

Results

Eighteen BRAF mutations and 15 wild-type mutations were identified with both methods. One tumor had a double mutation (GAA) in codon 600. Results of 3 samples were discrepant. Additional mutations (V600M, K601E) were detected using method 2. Sixteen DNA samples were analyzable with either method 1 or method 2. There was a significant association between BRAF V600E mutation and survival.

Conclusion

Standardized tissue fixation protocols are needed to optimize BRAF mutation analysis in melanoma. For melanoma treatment decisions, the availability of a fast and reliable BRAF V600E screening method may be sufficient. If other BRAF mutations in exons 11 and 15 are found to be of predictive value, a combination of the 2 methods would be useful.Key Words: BRAF mutations, V600E, Mutation detection methods, Melanoma