Blocking oncogenic signaling induced by the BRAFV600E mutation is a promising approach for melanoma treatment. We tested the anti-tumor effects of a specific inhibitor of Raf protein kinases, PLX4032/RG7204, in melanoma cell lines. PLX4032 decreased signaling through the MAPK pathway only in cell lines with the BRAFV600E mutation. Seven out of 10 BRAFV600E mutant cell lines displayed sensitivity based on cell viability assays and three were resistant at concentrations up to 10 muM. Among the sensitive cell lines, four were highly sensitive with IC50 values below 1 muM, and three were moderately sensitive with IC50 values between 1 and 10 muM. There was evidence of MAPK pathway inhibition and cell cycle arrest in both sensitive and resistant cell lines. Genomic analysis by sequencing, genotyping of close to 400 oncogeninc mutations by mass spectrometry, and SNP arrays demonstrated no major differences in BRAF locus amplification or in other oncogenic events between sensitive and resistant cell lines. However, metabolic tracer uptake studies demonstrated that sensitive cell lines had a more profound inhibition of FDG uptake upon exposure to PLX4032 than resistant cell lines. In conclusion, BRAFV600E mutant melanoma cell lines displayed a range of sensitivities to PLX4032 and metabolic imaging using PET probes can be used to assess sensitivity.

BACKGROUND

The combination of cobimetinib with vemurafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo and vemurafenib in previously untreated patients with BRAF(V600)-mutant advanced melanoma, as previously reported in the coBRIM study. In this Article, we report updated efficacy results, including overall survival and safety after longer follow-up, and selected biomarker correlative studies.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed BRAF(V600) mutation-positive unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive response system to receive cobimetinib (60 mg once daily for 21 days followed by a 7-day rest period in each 28-day cycle) or placebo, in combination with oral vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily). Progression-free and overall survival were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively; all analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01689519, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants.

RESULTS

Between Jan 8, 2013, and Jan 31, 2014, 495 eligible adult patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the cobimetinib plus vemurafenib group (n=247) or placebo plus vemurafenib group (n=248). At a median follow-up of 14·2 months (IQR 8·5-17·3), the updated investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 7·2 months (5·6-7·5) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46-0·72], p<0·0001). The final analysis for overall survival occurred when 255 (52%) patients had died (Aug 28, 2015). Median overall survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·3-not estimable) for cobimetinib and vemurafenib versus 17·4 months (95% CI 15·0-19·8) for placebo and vemurafenib (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·90; p=0·005). The safety profile for cobimetinib and vemurafenib was tolerable and manageable, and no new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events occurring at a higher frequency in patients in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group compared with the vemurafenib group were γ-glutamyl transferase increase (36 [15%] in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group vs 25 [10%] in the placebo and vemurafenib group), blood creatine phosphokinase increase (30 [12%] vs one [<1%]), and alanine transaminase increase (28 [11%] vs 15 [6%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 92 patients (37%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 69 patients (28%) in the vemurafenib group. Pyrexia (six patients [2%]) and dehydration (five patients [2%]) were the most common serious adverse events reported in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group. A total of 259 patients have died: 117 (47%) in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 142 (58%) in the vemurafenib group. The primary cause of death was disease progression in most patients: 109 (93%) of 117 in the cobimetinib and vemurafenib group and 133 (94%) of 142 in the vemurafenib group.

CONCLUSIONS

These data confirm the clinical benefit of cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib and support the use of the combination as a standard first-line approach to improve survival in patients with advanced BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND

F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

BACKGROUND

In metastatic colorectal cancer, mutation testing for KRAS exon 2 is widely implemented to select patients with wild-type tumors for treatment with the monocloncal anti-EGFR antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab. The added predictive value of additional biomarkers in the RAS-RAF-MAPK and PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathways in colorectal cancer is uncertain, which led us to systematically review the impact of alterations in KRAS (outside of exon 2), NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and PTEN in relation to the clinical benefit from anti-EGFR treatment.

METHODS

In total, 22 studies that include 2395 patients formed the basis for a meta-analysis on alterations in KRAS exons 3 and 4, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA and PTEN and outcome of anti-EGFR treatment. Odds ratios for objective response rate (ORR) and hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated.

RESULTS

Mutations in KRAS exons 3 and 4, BRAF, PIK3CA and non-functional PTEN (mutations or loss of protein expression) significantly predicted poor ORR (OR = 0.26, OR = 0.29, OR = 0.39, and OR = 0.41, respectively). Significantly shorter PFS applied to mutations in KRAS exons 3 and 4 (HR = 2.19), NRAS (HR = 2.30) and BRAF (HR = 2.95) and non-functional PTEN (HR = 1.88). Significantly shorter OS applied to mutations in KRAS exons 3 and 4 (HR = 1.78), NRAS (HR = 1.85), BRAF (HR = 2.52), PIK3CA (HR = 1.43) and alterations in PTEN (HR = 2.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis suggests that mutations in KRAS exons 3 and 4, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA and non-functional PTEN predict resistance to anti-EGFR therapies and demonstrates that biomarker analysis beyond KRAS exon 2 should be implemented for prediction of clinical benefit from anti-EGFR antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prognostic value of BRAF V600E mutation for the recurrence of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC).

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study of the relationship between BRAF V600E mutation and recurrence of PTC in 2,099 patients (1,615 women and 484 men), with a median age of 45 years (interquartile range [IQR], 34 to 58 years) and a median follow-up time of 36 months (IQR, 14 to 75 months).

RESULTS

The overall BRAF V600E mutation prevalence was 48.5% (1,017 of 2,099). PTC recurrence occurred in 20.9% (213 of 1,017) of BRAF V600E mutation-positive and 11.6% (125 of 1,082) of BRAF V600E mutation-negative patients. Recurrence rates were 47.71 (95% CI, 41.72 to 54.57) versus 26.03 (95% CI, 21.85 to 31.02) per 1,000 person-years in BRAF mutation-positive versus -negative patients (P < .001), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.46 to 2.28), which remained significant in a multivariable model adjusting for patient sex and age at diagnosis, medical center, and various conventional pathologic factors. Significant association between BRAF mutation and PTC recurrence was also found in patients with conventionally low-risk disease stage I or II and micro-PTC and within various subtypes of PTC. For example, in BRAF mutation-positive versus -negative follicular-variant PTC, recurrence occurred in 21.3% (19 of 89) and 7.0% (24 of 342) of patients, respectively, with recurrence rates of 53.84 (95% CI, 34.34 to 84.40) versus 19.47 (95% CI, 13.05 to 29.04) per 1,000 person-years (P < .001) and an HR of 3.20 (95% CI, 1.46 to 7.02) after adjustment for clinicopathologic factors. BRAF mutation was associated with poorer recurrence-free probability in Kaplan-Meier survival analyses in various clinicopathologic categories.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study demonstrates an independent prognostic value of BRAF V600E mutation for PTC recurrence in various clinicopathologic categories.

The detection and quantification of genetic heterogeneity in populations of cells is fundamentally important to diverse fields, ranging from microbial evolution to human cancer genetics. However, despite the cost and throughput advances associated with massively parallel sequencing, it remains challenging to reliably detect mutations that are present at a low relative abundance in a given DNA sample. Here we describe smMIP, an assay that combines single molecule tagging with multiplex targeted capture to enable practical and highly sensitive detection of low-frequency or subclonal variation. To demonstrate the potential of the method, we simultaneously resequenced 33 clinically informative cancer genes in eight cell line and 45 clinical cancer samples. Single molecule tagging facilitated extremely accurate consensus calling, with an estimated per-base error rate of 8.4 × 10(-6) in cell lines and 2.6 × 10(-5) in clinical specimens. False-positive mutations in the single molecule consensus base-calls exhibited patterns predominantly consistent with DNA damage, including 8-oxo-guanine and spontaneous deamination of cytosine. Based on mixing experiments with cell line samples, sensitivity for mutations above 1% frequency was 83% with no false positives. At clinically informative sites, we identified seven low-frequency point mutations (0.2%-4.7%), including BRAF p.V600E (melanoma, 0.2% alternate allele frequency), KRAS p.G12V (lung, 0.6%), JAK2 p.V617F (melanoma, colon, two lung, 0.3%-1.4%), and NRAS p.Q61R (colon, 4.7%). We anticipate that smMIP will be broadly adoptable as a practical and effective method for accurately detecting low-frequency mutations in both research and clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the mitogen-activated protein (MAP)/extracellular signal-regulated (ERK) kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor selumetinib versus temozolomide in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma.

METHODS

This phase II, open-label, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study examined the effect of 100 mg oral selumetinib twice daily in 28-day cycles versus oral temozolomide (200 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days, then 23 days off-treatment). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were randomized. Progression-free survival did not differ significantly between selumetinib and temozolomide (median time to event 78 and 80 days, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.07; 80% confidence interval, 0.86-1.32). Objective response was observed in six (5.8%) patients receiving selumetinib and nine (9.4%) patients in the temozolomide group. Among patients with BRAF mutations, objective responses were similar between selumetinib and temozolomide groups (11.1% and 10.7%, respectively). However, five of the six selumetinib partial responders were BRAF mutated. Frequently reported adverse events with selumetinib were dermatitis acneiform (papular pustular rash; 59.6%), diarrhea (56.6%), nausea (50.5%), and peripheral edema (40.4%), whereas nausea (64.2%), constipation (47.4%), and vomiting (44.2%) were reported with temozolomide.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in progression-free survival was observed between patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma unselected for BRAF/NRAS mutations, who received therapy with selumetinib or temozolomide. Five of six patients with partial response to selumetinib had BRAF mutant tumors.

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the BRAF V600E mutation have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months after failure of initial therapy. Inhibition of BRAF alone has limited activity because of pathway reactivation through epidermal growth factor receptor signaling.

In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we enrolled 665 patients with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer who had had disease progression after one or two previous regimens. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab (triplet-therapy group); encorafenib and cetuximab (doublet-therapy group); or the investigators' choice of either cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) (control group). The primary end points were overall survival and objective response rate in the triplet-therapy group as compared with the control group. A secondary end point was overall survival in the doublet-therapy group as compared with the control group. We report here the results of a prespecified interim analysis.

The median overall survival was 9.0 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.70; P<0.001). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 18 to 35) in the triplet-therapy group and 2% (95% CI, 0 to 7) in the control group (P<0.001). The median overall survival in the doublet-therapy group was 8.4 months (hazard ratio for death vs. control, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 58% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, in 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and in 61% in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of encorafenib, cetuximab, and binimetinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and a higher response rate than standard therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Array BioPharma and others; BEACON CRC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02928224; EudraCT number, 2015-005805-35.).

BACKGROUND

Molecular markers in colon cancer are needed for a more accurate classification and personalized treatment. We determined the effects on clinical outcome of the BRAF mutation, microsatellite instability (MSI) and KRAS mutations in stage II and stage III colon carcinoma.

METHODS

Stage II colon carcinoma patients (n = 106) treated with surgery only and 258 stage III patients all adjuvantly treated with 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy were included. KRAS mutations in codons 12 and 13, V600E BRAF mutation and MSI status were determined.

RESULTS

Older patients (P < 0.001), right-sided (P = 0.018), better differentiated (P = 0.003) and MSI tumors (P < 0.001) were significantly more frequent in stage II than stage III. In both groups, there was a positive association between mutated BRAF and MSI (P = 0.001) and BRAF mutation and right-sided tumors (P = 0.001). Mutations in BRAF and KRAS were mutually exclusive. In a multivariate survival analysis with pooled stage II and stage III data, BRAF mutation was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival [hazards ratio (HR) = 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.8 for OS and HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.22-0.99]. KRAS mutation conferred a poorer disease-free survival (HR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.38-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

The V600E BRAF mutation confers a worse prognosis to stage II and stage III colon cancer patients independently of disease stage and therapy.

BACKGROUND

Deregulation of EGFR signaling is common in non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and this finding led to the development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are highly effective in a subset of NSCLC. Mutations of EGFR (mEGFR) and copy number gains (CNGs) of EGFR (gEGFR) and HER2 (gHER2) have been reported to predict for TKI response. Mutations in KRAS (mKRAS) are associated with primary resistance to TKIs.

RESULTS

We investigated the relationship between mutations, CNGs and response to TKIs in a large panel of NSCLC cell lines. Genes studied were EGFR, HER2, HER3 HER4, KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA. Mutations were detected by sequencing, while CNGs were determined by quantitative PCR (qPCR), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). IC50 values for the TKIs gefitinib (Iressa) and erlotinib (Tarceva) were determined by MTS assay. For any of the seven genes tested, mutations (39/77, 50.6%), copy number gains (50/77, 64.9%) or either (65/77, 84.4%) were frequent in NSCLC lines. Mutations of EGFR (13%) and KRAS (24.7%) were frequent, while they were less frequent for the other genes. The three techniques for determining CNG were well correlated, and qPCR data were used for further analyses. CNGs were relatively frequent for EGFR and KRAS in adenocarcinomas. While mutations were largely mutually exclusive, CNGs were not. EGFR and KRAS mutant lines frequently demonstrated mutant allele specific imbalance i.e. the mutant form was usually in great excess compared to the wild type form. On a molar basis, sensitivity to gefitinib and erlotinib were highly correlated. Multivariate analyses led to the following results: 1. mEGFR and gEGFR and gHER2 were independent factors related to gefitinib sensitivity, in descending order of importance. 2. mKRAS was associated with increased in vitro resistance to gefitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Our in vitro studies confirm and extend clinical observations and demonstrate the relative importance of both EGFR mutations and CNGs and HER2 CNGs in the sensitivity to TKIs.

The Microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF) is an important regulator of cell-type specific functions in melanocytic cells. MITF is essential for the survival of pigmented cells, but whereas high levels of MITF drive melanocyte differentiation, lower levels are required to permit proliferation and survival of melanoma cells. MITF is phosphorylated by ERK, and this stimulates its activation, but also targets it for degradation through the ubiquitin-proteosome pathway, coupling MITF degradation to its activation. We have previously shown that because ERK is hyper-activated in melanoma cells in which BRAF is mutated, the MITF protein is constitutively down-regulated. Here we describe another intriguing aspect of MITF regulation by oncogenic BRAF in melanoma cells. We show oncogenic BRAF up-regulates MITF transcription through ERK and the transcription factor BRN2 (N-Oct3). In contrast, we show that in melanocytes this pathway does not exist because BRN2 is not expressed, demonstrating that MITF regulation is a newly acquired function of oncogenic BRAF that is not performed by the wild-type protein. Critically, in melanoma cells MITF is required downstream of oncogenic BRAF because it regulates expression of key cell cycle regulatory proteins such as CDK2 and CDK4. Wild-type BRAF does not regulate this pathway in melanocytes. Thus, we show that oncogenic BRAF exerts exquisite control over MITF on two levels. It downregulates the protein by stimulating its degradation, but then counteracts this by increasing transcription through BRN2. Our data suggest that oncogenic BRAF plays a critical role in regulating MITF expression to ensure that its protein levels are compatible with proliferation and survival of melanoma cells. We propose that its ability to appropriate the regulation of this critical factor explains in part why BRAF is such a potent oncogene in melanoma.

Mutations of the BRAF protein serine/threonine kinase gene have recently been identified in a variety of human cancers, most notably melanomas. We sought to determine the frequency of BRAF mutations in human lung cancer pathogenesis. Analysis of BRAF sequence from 127 primary human lung adenocarcinomas revealed mutations in two tumor specimens, one in exon 11 (G465V), and a second in exon 15 (L596R). These specimens belong to the same adenocarcinoma subgroup as defined by clustering of gene expression data. BRAF may provide a target for anticancer chemotherapy in a subset of lung adenocarcinoma patients.

OBJECTIVE

Colon tumors with defective DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) have a well-characterized phenotype and accounts for approximately 15% to 20% of sporadic colon cancer as well as those colon cancer patients with Lynch syndrome. Although the presence of dMMR seems to be a favorable prognostic marker, data suggest that these patients do not respond as well to adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this study, we examined the prognostic significance of tumor MMR deficiency and the presence of a specific mutation in BRAF (V600E) in a group of patients (n = 533) who participated in a randomized prospective clinical trial through the North Central Cancer Treatment Group.

RESULTS

Tumors with dMMR were found to be associated with higher tumor grade (P = 0.001), proximal location (P < 0.0001), and improved overall and disease-free survival (P = 0.05 and 0.04, respectively). Among all cases examined, evaluation of the BRAF V600E mutation status revealed no statistically significant differences in either disease-free or overall survival. Patients were then grouped into four categories for further analysis: dMMR/BRAF(-), dMMR/BRAF(+), pMMR/BRAF(-), and pMMR/BRAF(+). The dMMR/BRAF(-) group had a significantly improved overall survival (5-year overall survival of 100% versus 73%, P = 0.002) compared with all others. The remaining three groups had very similar survival outcomes. An additional cohort of tumors previously classified as having dMMR were also tested for the BRAF V600E alteration. Results remained significant (P = 0.006) when the two groups were combined for analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these data suggest that the underlying molecular etiology of those tumors having dMMR may influence the disease outcome in these patients.

We report genetic aberrations that activate the ERK/MAP kinase pathway in 100% of posterior fossa pilocytic astrocytomas, with a high frequency of gene fusions between KIAA1549 and BRAF among these tumours. These fusions were identified from analysis of focal copy number gains at 7q34, detected using Affymetrix 250K and 6.0 SNP arrays. PCR and sequencing confirmed the presence of five KIAA1549-BRAF fusion variants, along with a single fusion between SRGAP3 and RAF1. The resulting fusion genes lack the auto-inhibitory domains of BRAF and RAF1, which are replaced in-frame by the beginning of KIAA1549 and SRGAP3, respectively, conferring constitutive kinase activity. An activating mutation of KRAS was identified in the single pilocytic astrocytoma without a BRAF or RAF1 fusion. Further fusions and activating mutations in BRAF were identified in 28% of grade II astrocytomas, highlighting the importance of the ERK/MAP kinase pathway in the development of paediatric low-grade gliomas.

In response to DNA damage, eukaryotic cells initiate a complex signalling pathway, termed the DNA damage response (DDR), which coordinates cell cycle arrest with DNA repair. Studies have shown that oncogene-induced senescence, which provides a barrier to tumour development, involves activation of the DDR. Using a genome-wide RNA interference (RNAi) screen, we have identified 17 factors required for oncogenic BRAF to induce senescence in primary fibroblasts and melanocytes. One of these factors is an F-box protein, FBXO31, a candidate tumour suppressor encoded in 16q24.3, a region in which there is loss of heterozygosity in breast, ovarian, hepatocellular and prostate cancers. Here we study the cellular role of FBXO31, identify its target substrate and determine the basis for its growth inhibitory activity. We show that ectopic expression of FBXO31 acts through a proteasome-directed pathway to mediate the degradation of cyclin D1, an important regulator of progression from G1 to S phase, resulting in arrest in G1. Cyclin D1 degradation results from a direct interaction with FBXO31 and is dependent on the F-box motif of FBXO31 and phosphorylation of cyclin D1 at Thr 286, which is known to be required for cyclin D1 proteolysis. The involvement of the DDR in oncogene-induced senescence prompted us to investigate the role of FBXO31 in DNA repair. We find that DNA damage induced by gamma-irradiation results in increased FBXO31 levels, which requires phosphorylation of FBXO31 by the DDR-initiating kinase ATM. RNAi-mediated knockdown of FBXO31 prevents cells from undergoing efficient arrest in G1 after gamma-irradiation and markedly increases sensitivity to DNA damage. Finally, we show that a variety of DNA damaging agents all result in a large increase in FBXO31 levels, indicating that induction of FBXO31 is a general response to genotoxic stress. Our results reveal FBXO31 as a regulator of the G1/S transition that is specifically required for DNA damage-induced growth arrest.

Substantial improvements have been made in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer over the last two decades. The overall survival of patients diagnosed with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer has increased from approximately 1 year during the era of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy to more than 30 months with the integration of multiple cytotoxic agents and targeted therapies. More effective therapeutic combinations have increased the rate of curative-intent surgical resections, resulting in median survival in this subgroup that exceed 5 years. Here we review the landscape of systemic therapies for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer during the current era of targeted therapies, review the effects of RAS and BRAF mutations on clinical decision making, and reflect on future directions for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

We have used whole exome sequencing to compare a group of presentation t(4;14) with t(11;14) cases of myeloma to define the mutational landscape. Each case was characterized by a median of 24.5 exonic nonsynonymous single-nucleotide variations, and there was a consistently higher number of mutations in the t(4;14) group, but this number did not reach statistical significance. We show that the transition and transversion rates in the 2 subgroups are similar, suggesting that there was no specific mechanism leading to mutation differentiating the 2 groups. Only 3% of mutations were seen in both groups, and recurrently mutated genes include NRAS, KRAS, BRAF, and DIS3 as well as DNAH5, a member of the axonemal dynein family. The pattern of mutation in each group was distinct, with the t(4;14) group being characterized by deregulation of chromatin organization, actin filament, and microfilament movement. Recurrent RAS pathway mutations identified subclonal heterogeneity at a mutational level in both groups, with mutations being present as either dominant or minor subclones. The presence of subclonal diversity was confirmed at a single-cell level using other tumor-acquired mutations. These results are consistent with a distinct molecular pathogenesis underlying each subgroup and have important impacts on targeted treatment strategies. The Medical Research Council Myeloma IX trial is registered under ISRCTN68454111.

Germline variants in MC1R, the gene encoding the melanocortin-1 receptor, and sun exposure increase risk for melanoma in Caucasians. The majority of melanomas that occur on skin with little evidence of chronic sun-induced damage (non-CSD melanoma) have mutations in the BRAF oncogene, whereas in melanomas on skin with marked CSD (CSD melanoma) these mutations are less frequent. In two independent Caucasian populations, we show that MC1R variants are strongly associated with BRAF mutations in non-CSD melanomas. In this tumor subtype, the risk for melanoma associated with MC1R is due to an increase in risk of developing melanomas with BRAF mutations.

OBJECTIVE

PD-L1 is the main ligand for the immune inhibitory receptor PD-1. This ligand is frequently expressed by melanoma cells. In this study, we investigated whether PD-L1 expression is controlled by melanoma driver mutations and modified by oncogenic signaling inhibition.

METHODS

Expression of PD-L1 was investigated in a panel of 51 melanoma cell lines containing different oncogenic mutations, including cell lines with innate and acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi). The effects of targeted therapy drugs on expression of PD-L1 by melanoma cells were investigated.

RESULTS

No association was found between the level of PD-L1 expression and mutations in BRAF, NRAS, PTEN, or amplification of AKT. Resistance to vemurafenib due to the activation of alternative signaling pathways was accompanied with the induction of PD-L1 expression, whereas the resistance due to the reactivation of the MAPK pathway had no effect on PD-L1 expression. In melanoma cell lines, the effects of BRAF, MEK, and PI3K inhibitors on expression of PD-L1 were variable from reduction to induction, particularly in the presence of INFγ. In PD-L1-exposed lymphocytes, vemurafenib paradoxically restored activity of the MAPK pathway and increased the secretion of cytokines.

CONCLUSIONS

In melanoma cell lines, including BRAFi-resistant cells, PD-L1 expression is variably regulated by oncogenic signaling pathways. PD-L1-exposed lymphocytes decrease MAPK signaling, which is corrected by exposure to vemurafenib, providing potential benefits of combining this drug with immunotherapies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence and prognostic value of mismatch repair (MMR) status and its relation to BRAF mutation (BRAF(MT)) status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

A pooled analysis of four phase III studies in first-line treatment of mCRC (CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS) was performed. Primary outcome parameter was the hazard ratio (HR) for median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to MMR and BRAF. For the pooled analysis, Cox regression analysis was performed on individual patient data.

RESULTS

The primary tumors of 3,063 patients were analyzed, of which 153 (5.0%) exhibited deficient MMR (dMMR) and 250 (8.2%) a BRAF(MT). BRAF(MT) was observed in 53 (34.6%) of patients with dMMR tumors compared with 197 (6.8%) of patients with proficient MMR (pMMR) tumors (P < 0.001). In the pooled dataset, median PFS and OS were significantly worse for patients with dMMR compared with pMMR tumors [HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12-1.57 and HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13-1.61, respectively), and for patients with BRAF(MT) compared with BRAF wild-type (BRAF(WT)) tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17-1.54 and HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.66-2.19, respectively). PFS and OS were significantly decreased for patients with BRAF(MT) within the group of patients with pMMR, but not for BRAF status within dMMR, or MMR status within BRAF(WT) or BRAF(MT).

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of dMMR and BRAF(MT) in patients with mCRC is low and both biomarkers confer an inferior prognosis. Our data suggest that the poor prognosis of dMMR is driven by the BRAF(MT) status.

OBJECTIVE

Disseminated melanoma is highly therapy resistant. The finding that 66% of melanomas harbor the activating BRAF(V600E) mutation has raised expectations for targeting the Ras/RAF/mitogen-activated protein (MAP)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) kinase (MEK)/ERK pathway in melanoma. This study addresses the anti-melanoma activity of the MEK inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886).

METHODS

We recently have shown that growing melanoma cells as three-dimensional collagen-implanted spheroids enhances resistance to the MEK inhibitor U0126. Here, we investigated the anti-melanoma activity of AZD6244 in two-dimensional cell culture, the three-dimensional spheroid model, and an in vivo model.

RESULTS

In two-dimensional cell culture, AZD6244 was cytostatic and reduced the growth of melanoma cells in a concentration-dependent fashion through the induction of G(1)-phase cell cycle arrest. In our three-dimensional spheroid model, the effects of AZD6244 were largely cytostatic and reversible, with drug washout leading to spheroid regrowth. Finally, 1205Lu cells were grown as tumor xenografts in severe combined immunodeficient mice. After tumor establishment, mice were dosed twice daily with 0, 10, or 30 mg/kg AZD6244 p.o. AZD6244 treatment decreased phospho-ERK in the tumors and significantly suppressed tumor growth. The original tumors remained viable, suggesting that AZD6244 monotherapy was largely cytostatic, and not proapoptotic in this model. Further studies showed that co-administration of AZD6244 (30 mg/kg) with docetaxel (15 mg/kg) led to tumor regression, indicating the potential for MEK inhibitor/chemotherapy drug combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhibition of MEK is cytostatic as a monotherapy in melanoma, but cytotoxic when combined with docetaxel.

OBJECTIVE

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its downstream factors KRAS and BRAF are mutated with different frequencies in non-small cell lung cancer and mutations predict clinical response to EGFR inhibitors. The present study compared the mutational status of EGFR, KRAS, and BRAF in primary tumors with the one in corresponding lymph node metastases.

METHODS

Direct bidirectional sequencing of EGFR gene exons 18 to 21, KRAS gene codons 12/13 and 61 to 68, and BRAF exon 15 was done on 96 paired samples of primary lung adenocarcinomas and corresponding locoregional lymph node metastases. In addition, comparative genomic hybridization analyses in two pairs of corresponding primary and metastatic tumor samples with discordant EGFR mutation status were done.

RESULTS

Mutations in EGFR, KRAS, and BRAF were observed in 7 (7%), 36 (38%), and 2 (2%) patients, respectively. Interestingly, KRAS mutations were observed in two patients with an EGFR mutation. Mutations in primary tumors and lymph node metastases were identical in 1 of 7 (14%) patients in case of EGFR and 11 of 36 (31%) patients in case of KRAS. One patient harbored different KRAS mutations in primary and corresponding metastatic tumors. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis revealed similar patterns of chromosomal changes, strongly supporting a common clonal origin of primary tumors and metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility of differences in the mutational status of EGFR, KRAS, BRAF between primary tumors and corresponding lymph node metastases should be considered whenever these mutations are used for the selection of patients for EGFR-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVE

Whereas the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in colorectal cancer associates with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high and BRAF-mutation(+), the existence of an intermediate-methylation subgroup associated with KRAS-mutation(+) is controversial, and suitable markers for the subgroup have yet to be developed. Our aim is to clarify DNA methylation epigenotypes of colorectal cancer more comprehensively.

METHODS

To select new methylation markers on a genome-wide scale, we did methylated DNA immunoprecipitation-on-chip analysis of colorectal cancer cell lines and re-expression array analysis by 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine/Trichostatin A treatment. Methylation levels were analyzed quantitatively in 149 colorectal cancer samples using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Colorectal cancer was epigenotyped by unsupervised two-way hierarchical clustering method.

RESULTS

Among 1,311 candidate silencing genes, 44 new markers were selected and underwent quantitative methylation analysis in colorectal cancer samples together with 16 previously reported markers. Colorectal cancer was clustered into high-, intermediate-, and low-methylation epigenotypes. Methylation markers were clustered into two major groups: group 1 showing methylation in high-methylation epigenotype, and group 2 showing methylation in high- and intermediate-methylation epigenotypes. A two-step marker panel deciding epigenotypes was developed with 95% accuracy: the 1st panel consisting of three group-1 markers (CACNA1G, LOX, SLC30A10) to extract high-methylation epigenotype, and the 2nd panel consisting of four group-2 markers (ELMO1, FBN2, THBD, HAND1) and SLC30A10 again to divide the remains into intermediate- and low-methylation epigenotypes. The high-methylation epigenotype correlated significantly with MSI-high and BRAF-mutation(+) in concordance with reported CIMP. Intermediate-epigenotype significantly correlated with KRAS-mutation(+). KRAS-mutation(+) colorectal cancer with intermediate-methylation epigenotype showed significantly worse prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Three methylation epigenotypes exist in colorectal cancer, and suitable classification markers have been developed. Intermediate-methylation epigenotype with KRAS-mutation(+) correlated with worse prognosis.

Patients who have unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively.A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line treatment with dabrafenib plus trametinib led to long-term benefit in approximately one third of the patients who had unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).