Cutaneous manifestations of dabrafenib (GSK2118436): a selective inhibitor of mutant BRAF in patients with metastatic melanoma

Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM-3): extended follow-up of a phase 3, randomised, open-label study

BACKGROUND

In the BRIM-3 trial, vemurafenib was associated with risk reduction versus dacarbazine of both death and progression in patients with advanced BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma. We present an extended follow-up analysis of the total population and in the BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) mutation subgroups.

METHODS

Patients older than 18 years, with treatment-naive metastatic melanoma and whose tumour tissue was positive for BRAF(V600) mutations were eligible. Patients also had to have a life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate haematological, hepatic, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned by interactive voice recognition system to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) of body surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (n=675), with data censored at crossover. A sensitivity analysis was done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01006980.

FINDINGS

675 eligible patients were enrolled from 104 centres in 12 countries between Jan 4, 2010, and Dec 16, 2010. 337 patients were randomly assigned to receive vemurafenib and 338 to receive dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·7-16·0) on vemurafenib and 9·5 months (3·1-14·7) on dacarbazine. 83 (25%) of the 338 patients initially randomly assigned to dacarbazine crossed over from dacarbazine to vemurafenib. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the vemurafenib group than in the dacarbazine group (13·6 months [95% CI 12·0-15·2] vs 9·7 months [7·9-12·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·57-0·87]; p=0·0008), as was median progression-free survival (6·9 months [95% CI 6·1-7·0] vs 1·6 months [1·6-2·1]; HR 0·38 [95% CI 0·32-0·46]; p<0·0001). For the 598 (91%) patients with BRAF(V600E) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·9-14·9) compared with 10·0 months (8·0-14·0) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·93]; p=0·0085); median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·2-7·0) and 1·6 months (1·6-2·1), respectively (HR 0·39 [95% CI 0·33-0·47]; p<0·0001). For the 57 (9%) patients with BRAF(V600K) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 14·5 months (95% CI 11·2-not estimable) compared with 7·6 months (6·1-16·6) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·21-0·90]; p=0·024); median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·4-9·0) and 1·7 months (1·4-2·9), respectively (HR 0·30 [95% CI 0·16-0·56]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3-4 events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (65 [19%] of 337 patients) and keratoacanthomas (34 [10%]), rash (30 [9%]), and abnormal liver function tests (38 [11%]) in the vemurafenib group and neutropenia (26 [9%] of 287 patients) in the dacarbazine group. Eight (2%) patients in the vemurafenib group and seven (2%) in the dacarbazine group had grade 5 events.

INTERPRETATION

Inhibition of BRAF with vemurafenib improves survival in patients with the most common BRAF(V600E) mutation and in patients with the less common BRAF(V600K) mutation.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

Risk of second primary malignancies following a diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer in Alberta, Canada from 1979 to 2009

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have revealed geographical variations with respect to the risk of second primary malignancies (SPMs) following cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) and nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

OBJECTIVES

To provide the largest analysis of the risk of SPM following skin cancers in Canada and to detect associations that may shed light on common pathogeneses between linked malignancies.

METHODS

Relative risks for development of SPMs following a diagnosis of CMM or NMSC were calculated via a retrospective analysis of data retrieved from the Alberta Cancer Registry (ACR) from 1979 to 2009.

RESULTS

From 1979 to 2009, 85,967 NMSC and 6884 CMM incident cases were recorded in the ACR. In total 19,869 SPMs were identified following a primary NMSC (7709 cutaneous and 12,160 noncutaneous), while 1437 SPMs (908 cutaneous and 529 noncutaneous) followed CMM. Patients with a previous history of skin cancer had a 60% increased risk of developing an SPM compared with those without [observed/expected ratio (O/E) 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-1.7; P < 0.001]. Thirty and 10 different SPMs were significantly identified to follow a diagnosis of NMSC and CMM, respectively. Patients under the age of 40 years with a prior history of CMM had a marked increased expectancy for SPM [O/E 5.6, 95% CI 4.5-7.0; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies are warranted to identify environmental and molecular connections among linked cutaneous and noncutaneous malignancies, which may lead to earlier detection of related neoplasms via expanded screening protocols and development of shared treatment regimens. Heightened surveillance for the development of SPMs in patients with CMM under the age of 40 years should be considered.

Clinicopathological relevance of BRAF mutations in human cancer

BRAF represents one of the most frequently mutated protein kinase genes in human tumours. The mutation is commonly tested in pathology practice. BRAF mutation is seen in melanoma, papillary thyroid carcinoma (including papillary thyroid carcinoma arising from ovarian teratoma), ovarian serous tumours, colorectal carcinoma, gliomas, hepatobiliary carcinomas and hairy cell leukaemia. In these cancers, various genetic aberrations of the BRAF proto-oncogene, such as different point mutations and chromosomal rearrangements, have been reported. The most common mutation, BRAF V600E, can be detected by DNA sequencing and immunohistochemistry on formalin fixed, paraffin embedded tumour tissue. Detection of BRAF V600E mutation has the potential for clinical use as a diagnostic and prognostic marker. In addition, a great deal of research effort has been spent in strategies inhibiting its activity. Indeed, recent clinical trials involving BRAF selective inhibitors exhibited promising response rates in metastatic melanoma patients. Clinical trials are underway for other cancers. However, cutaneous side effects of treatment have been reported and therapeutic response to cancer is short-lived due to the emergence of several resistance mechanisms. In this review, we give an update on the clinical pathological relevance of BRAF mutation in cancer. It is hoped that the review will enhance the direction of future research and assist in more effective use of the knowledge of BRAF mutation in clinical practice.

Dermatological adverse events from BRAF inhibitors: a growing problem

The development of targeted therapies has ushered in a new era in the management of melanoma. Inhibitors of the RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway have taken the center stage with development at a rapid pace. Vemurafenib was recently approved by regulatory agencies, and other agents (e.g. dabrafenib) are in various stages of clinical testing. These agents are producing remarkable results for patients, but are also presenting new challenges. Clinical toxicities and drug resistance are topmost issues. Some of the most common and vivid representations of adverse events to these agents are the dermatologic manifestations. Published trials and initial observations reflect a toxicity profile (e.g. squamous cell carcinomas/keratoacanthomas, maculopapular rashes, hyperkeratosis) that is distinct from cutaneous toxicities from EGFR and mTOR inhibitors (acneiform rash, paronychia, xerosis). Their management extends beyond conservative treatment and includes specific physical and surgical treatment modalities, skill sets unique to dermatologists. All these pose significant challenges to clinicians, and sound knowledge of such toxicities and their management will likely result in improved patient outcomes and quality of life. In this manuscript, we provide an overview of the emerging scientific literature on dermatological adverse events arising out of BRAF inhibition.

Cutaneous adverse events to type I BRAF inhibitors: an analysis of effects associated with each inhibitor and therapeutic time interval to onset

The treatment of malignant melanoma with inhibitors targeting the BRAF V600E mutation has demonstrated dramatic clinical and radiographic response with improved progression-free and overall survival in the majority of patients receiving treatment. However, cutaneous adverse effects-from proliferative processes to more classic drug side effects-are increasingly being reported in patients on BRAF inhibitors. In this comprehensive literature review we provide (1) an all-inclusive list of cutaneous adverse effects associated with selective class I RAF inhibitors, (2) specific adverse effects associated with each inhibitor, and (3) the therapeutic time interval associated with the onset of all reported lesion types. Twenty-two studies reporting cutaneous adverse reactions with selective class I RAF inhibitor therapy were retrieved from PubMed and sourced from relevant articles referenced by other papers. We identified over 45 differently described lesion types, corresponding to close to 2,000 cases. The most commonly reported lesion types in order of decreasing frequency include inflammatory dermatoses, benign lesions, malignant lesions, and hair/nail-related abnormalities. For the most part, the terminologies used in the original studies were retained. Case totals and time-to-lesion onset are presented for every group, and where available, for individual lesion types, by associated BRAF inhibitor.

Dabrafenib therapy for advanced melanoma

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the clinical development of dabrafenib and to highlight the clinically relevant distinct characteristics of dabrafenib in contrast to vemurafenib.

DATA SOURCE

An English-language literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed (1966-June 2013), using the keywords GSK2118436, dabrafenib, vemurafenib, selective BRAF inhibitor, and advanced melanoma, was conducted. Data were also obtained from package inserts, meeting abstracts, and clinical registries.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All relevant published articles on dabrafenib and vemurafenib were reviewed. Clinical trial registries and meeting abstracts were used for information about ongoing studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

BRAF(V600E) mutation confers constitutive BRAK kinase activation in melanoma cells, promoting tumor growth. This discovery led to the development of BRAF kinase inhibitors like vemurafenib and dabrafenib. Dabrafenib has been approved to treat patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma based on its clinical benefit demonstrated in a randomized phase III study. It has also been shown to be safe and effective in patients with BRAF mutant advanced melanoma involving the brain. Dabrafenib is well tolerated, with the most common adverse effects being hyperkeratosis, headache, pyrexia, and arthralgia. Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that one BRAF inhibitor is superior to the other. With similar efficacy, therapy selection will likely be influenced by differential tolerability and cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Dabrafenib joins vemurafenib to confirm the superior clinical outcome of the BRAF inhibitors when compared with dacarbazine in patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive advanced melanoma. Active research is ongoing to expand its utility into the adjuvant setting and to circumvent rapid emergence of drug resistance.

EGFR-ras-raf signaling in epidermal stem cells: roles in hair follicle development, regeneration, tissue remodeling and epidermal cancers

The mammalian skin is the largest organ of the body and its outermost layer, the epidermis, undergoes dynamic lifetime renewal through the activity of somatic stem cell populations. The EGFR-Ras-Raf pathway has a well-described role in skin development and tumor formation. While research mainly focuses on its role in cutaneous tumor initiation and maintenance, much less is known about Ras signaling in the epidermal stem cells, which are the main targets of skin carcinogenesis. In this review, we briefly discuss the properties of the epidermal stem cells and review the role of EGFR-Ras-Raf signaling in keratinocyte stem cells during homeostatic and pathological conditions.

Targeted therapy in melanoma - the role of BRAF, RAS and KIT mutations

Melanoma today is considered as a spectrum of melanocytic malignancies characterised by clinical and molecular features, including targetable mutations in several kinases such as BRAF or c-KIT. The successful development of therapies targeting these mutations has resulted in new specific treatment options. These include vemurafenib, dabrafenib, trametinib, imatinib and other kinase inhibitors that are selected when the respective mutation is present. The BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib has resulted in improved survival in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. Dabrafenib has shown similar efficacy. The MEK inhibitor trametinib also improved overall survival. In addition, the MEK inhibitor MEK 162 was investigated in a phase II clinical trial and showed promising efficacy in terms of response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) in NRAS-mutated melanomas. After this first success in the treatment of advanced melanoma, there is expectation that combinations of kinase inhibitors will additionally improve overall survival rates and PFS in advanced melanoma.

That which does not kill me makes me stronger; combining ERK1/2 pathway inhibitors and BH3 mimetics to kill tumour cells and prevent acquired resistance

Oncogenic mutations in RAS or BRAF can drive the inappropriate activation of the ERK1/2. In many cases, tumour cells adapt to become addicted to this deregulated ERK1/2 signalling for their proliferation, providing a therapeutic window for tumour-selective growth inhibition. As a result, inhibition of ERK1/2 signalling by BRAF or MEK1/2 inhibitors is an attractive therapeutic strategy. Indeed, the first BRAF inhibitor, vemurafenib, has now been approved for clinical use, while clinical evaluation of MEK1/2 inhibitors is at an advanced stage. Despite this progress, it is apparent that tumour cells adapt quickly to these new targeted agents so that tumours with acquired resistance can emerge within 6-9 months of primary treatment. One of the major reasons for this is that tumour cells typically respond to BRAF or MEK1/2 inhibitors by undergoing a G1 cell cycle arrest rather than dying. Indeed, although inhibition of ERK1/2 invariably increases the expression of pro-apoptotic BCL2 family proteins, tumour cells undergo minimal apoptosis. This cytostatic response may simply provide the cell with the opportunity to adapt and acquire resistance. Here we discuss recent studies that demonstrate that combination of BRAF or MEK1/2 inhibitors with inhibitors of pro-survival BCL2 proteins is synthetic lethal for ERK1/2-addicted tumour cells. This combination effectively transforms the cytostatic response of BRAF and MEK1/2 inhibitors into a striking apoptotic cell death response. This not only augments the primary efficacy of BRAF and MEK1/2 inhibitors but delays the onset of acquired resistance to these agents, validating their combination in the clinic.

LINKED ARTICLES

This article is part of a themed section on Emerging Therapeutic Aspects in Oncology. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2013.169.issue-8.

Paradoxical oncogenesis: are all BRAF inhibitors equal?

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is a concerning toxicity with BRAF inhibitors in the treatment for melanoma. While the two drugs shown to improve survival, vemurafenib, and dabrafenib, have similar efficacy, the reported rates of cSCC are quite different. Drawing upon preclinical and clinical trial data, this article discusses the potential factors behind the different cSCC incidences reported with the two BRAF inhibitors and provides a strategic approach to understand this issue further.

Paradoxical oncogenesis--the long-term effects of BRAF inhibition in melanoma

The clinical benefits of BRAF inhibition in patients with advanced-stage BRAF-mutant melanoma are now well established. Although the emergence of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas (SCCs) and secondary melanomas in patients on BRAF-inhibitor therapy have been well described, reports are emerging of additional secondary premalignant and malignant events, including RAS-mutant leukaemia, the metastatic recurrence of RAS-mutant colorectal cancer and the development of gastric and colonic polyps. In most cases, paradoxical MAPK activation--resulting from the BRAF-inhibitor-mediated homodimerization and heterodimerization of nonmutant RAF isoforms--seems to underlie the development of these secondary tumours. Although evidence supports that therapy with the simultaneous administration of BRAF and MEK inhibitors abrogates the onset of treatment-induced SCCs, whether combination treatment will limit the emergence of all BRAF-inhibitor-driven pathologies is unclear. In this Review, we describe the clinical and mechanistic manifestations of secondary cancers that have thus far been observed to arise as a consequence of BRAF inhibition. We discuss the concept of pre-existing populations of partly transformed cells with malignant potential that might be present in various organ systems, and the rationale for novel therapeutic strategies for the management of BRAF-inhibitor-induced neoplasia.

Biologics in dermatology

Skin and subcutaneous diseases affect millions of people worldwide, causing significant morbidity. Biologics are becoming increasingly useful for the treatment of many skin diseases, particularly as alternatives for patients who have failed to tolerate or respond to conventional systemic therapies. Biological therapies provide a targeted approach to treatment through interaction with specific components of the underlying immune and inflammatory disease processes. This review article examines the increasing evidence base for biologics in dermatology, including well-established treatments and novel agents.

Advances in personalized targeted treatment of metastatic melanoma and non-invasive tumor monitoring

Despite extensive scientific progress in the melanoma field, treatment of advanced stage melanoma with chemotherapeutics and biotherapeutics has rarely provided response rates higher than 20%. In the past decade, targeted inhibitors have been developed for metastatic melanoma, leading to the advent of more personalized therapies of genetically characterized tumors. Here we review current melanoma treatments and emerging targeted molecular therapies. In particular we discuss the mutant BRAF inhibitors Vemurafenib and Dabrafenib, which markedly inhibit tumor growth and advance patients' overall survival. However this response is almost inevitably followed by complete tumor relapse due to drug resistance hampering the encouraging initial responses. Several mechanisms of resistance within and outside the MAPK pathway have now been uncovered and have paved the way for clinical trials of combination therapies to try and overcome tumor relapse. It is apparent that personalized treatment management will be required in this new era of targeted treatment. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) provide an easily accessible means of monitoring patient relapse and several new approaches are available for the molecular characterization of CTCs. Thus CTCs provide a monitoring tool to evaluate treatment efficacy and early detection of drug resistance in real time. We detail here how advances in the molecular analysis of CTCs may provide insight into new avenues of approaching therapeutic options that would benefit personalized melanoma management.

Analysis of dermatologic events in vemurafenib-treated patients with melanoma

BACKGROUND

Vemurafenib has been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma. This report by the Vemurafenib Dermatology Working Group presents the characteristics of dermatologic adverse events (AEs) that occur in vemurafenib-treated patients, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cuSCC).

METHODS

Dermatologic AEs were assessed from three ongoing trials of BRAF(V600E) mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Histologic central review and genetic characterization were completed for a subset of cuSCC lesions.

RESULTS

A total of 520 patients received vemurafenib. The most commonly reported AEs were dermatologic AEs, occurring in 92%-95% of patients. Rash was the most common AE (64%-75% of patients), and the most common types were rash not otherwise specified, erythema, maculopapular rash, and folliculitis. Rash development did not appear to correlate with tumor response. Photosensitivity occurred in 35%-63% of patients, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) occurred in 8%-10% of patients. The severity of rash, photosensitivity, and PPE were mainly grade 1 or 2. In all, 19%-26% of patients developed cuSCC, mostly keratoacanthomas (KAs). The majority of patients with cuSCC continued therapy without dose reduction after resection. Genetic analysis of 29 cuSCC/KA samples demonstrated HRAS mutations in 41%.

CONCLUSIONS

Dermatologic AEs associated with vemurafenib treatment in patients with melanoma were generally manageable with supportive care measures. Dose interruptions and/or reductions were required in <10% of patients.

Genetics of melanoma

Genomic variation is a trend observed in various human diseases including cancer. Genetic studies have set out to understand how and why these variations result in cancer, why some populations are pre-disposed to the disease, and also how genetics affect drug responses. The melanoma incidence has been increasing at an alarming rate worldwide. The burden posed by melanoma has made it a necessity to understand the fundamental signaling pathways involved in this deadly disease. Signaling cascades such as mitogen-activated protein kinase and PI3K/AKT have been shown to be crucial in the regulation of processes that are commonly dysregulated during cancer development such as aberrant proliferation, loss of cell cycle control, impaired apoptosis, and altered drug metabolism. Understanding how these and other oncogenic pathways are regulated has been integral in our challenge to develop potent anti-melanoma drugs. With advances in technology and especially in next generation sequencing, we have been able to explore melanoma genomes and exomes leading to the identification of previously unknown genes with functions in melanomagenesis such as GRIN2A and PREX2. The therapeutic potential of these novel candidate genes is actively being pursued with some presenting as druggable targets while others serve as indicators of therapeutic responses. In addition, the analysis of the mutational signatures of melanoma tumors continues to cement the causative role of UV exposure in melanoma pathogenesis. It has become distinctly clear that melanomas from sun-exposed skin areas have distinct mutational signatures including C to T transitions indicative of UV-induced damage. It is thus necessary to continue spreading awareness on how to decrease the risk factors of developing the disease while at the same time working for a cure. Given the large amount of information gained from these sequencing studies, it is likely that in the future, treatment of melanoma will follow a highly personalized route that takes into account the differential mutational signatures of each individual’s cancer.

Metastatic melanoma - a review of current and future drugs

Background:

Melanoma is one of the most aggressive cancers, and it is estimated that 76,250 men and women will be diagnosed with melanoma of the skin in the USA in 2012. Over the last few decades many drugs have been developed but only in 2011 have new drugs demonstrated an impact on survival in metastatic melanoma.

Methods:

A systematic search of literature was conducted, and studies providing data on the effectiveness of current and/or future drugs used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma were selected for review. This review discusses the advantages and limitations of these agents, evaluating past, current and future clinical trials designed to overcome such limitations.

Results:

To date, there are four drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for melanoma (dacarbazine, interleukin-2, ipilimumab and vemurafenib). Despite efforts to develop new drugs, few of them have demonstrated any clinical benefits. Approved in 1975, dacarbazine remains the gold standard in chemotherapy, although ipilimumab and vemurafenib have raised many hopes in the last few years. Combining dacarbazine or other chemotherapy agents with new pharmacological agents may be a new way to achieve better clinical responses in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Discussion:

Advances in the molecular knowledge of melanoma have led to major improvements in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma, providing new targets and insights. However, heterogeneity amongst study populations, different approaches to treatment and the different melanoma types and localisations included in the trials makes their comparison difficult. New studies focusing on drugs developed in recent decades are warranted.

Vemurafenib: the first drug approved for BRAF-mutant cancer

The identification of driver oncogenes has provided important targets for drugs that can change the landscape of cancer therapies. One such example is the BRAF oncogene, which is found in about half of all melanomas as well as several other cancers. As a druggable kinase, oncogenic BRAF has become a crucial target of small-molecule drug discovery efforts. Following a rapid clinical development path, vemurafenib (Zelboraf; Plexxikon/Roche) was approved for the treatment of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma in the United States in August 2011 and the European Union in February 2012. This Review describes the underlying biology of BRAF, the technology used to identify vemurafenib and its clinical development milestones, along with future prospects based on lessons learned during its development.