SUMMARY Combined BRAF and MEK targeted therapy improves upon BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) therapy but is still beset by acquired resistance. We show that melanomas acquire resistance to combined BRAF and MEK inhibition by augmenting or combining mechanisms of single-agent BRAFi resistance. These double-drug resistance-associated genetic configurations significantly altered molecular interactions underlying MAPK pathway reactivation. V600EBRAF, expressed at supra-physiological levels because of V600EBRAF ultra-amplification, dimerized with and activated CRAF. In addition, MEK mutants enhanced interaction with over-expressed V600EBRAF via a regulatory interface at R662 of V600EBRAF. Importantly, melanoma cell lines selected for resistance to BRAFi+MEKi, but not those to BRAFi alone, displayed robust drug addiction, providing a potentially exploitable therapeutic opportunity.

SummaryHere, we retrospectively review imaging of 68 consecutive unselected patients with BRAF V600‐mutant metastatic melanoma for organ‐specific response and progression on vemurafenib. Complete or partial responses were less often seen in the central nervous system (CNS) (36%) and bone (16%) compared to lung (89%), subcutaneous (83%), spleen (71%), liver (85%) and lymph nodes/soft tissue (83%), P < 0.001. CNS was also the most common site of progression.Based on this, we tested in vitro the efficacy of the BRAF inhibitors PLX4720 and dabrafenib in the presence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Exogenous CSF dramatically reduced cell death in response to both BRAF inhibitors. Effective cell killing was restored by co‐administration of a PI‐3 kinase inhibitor.We conclude that the efficacy of vemurafenib is variable in different organs with CNS being particularly prone to resistance. Extrinsic factors, such as ERK‐ and PI3K‐activating factors in CSF, may mediate BRAF inhibitor resistance in the CNS.

No abstract

BackgroundBiliary tract cancer (BTC) is a dismal disease, even after curative intent surgery. We conducted this prospective, non-randomized phase II study to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cisplatin and gemcitabine as adjuvant treatment in patients with resected BTC.MethodsPatients initially received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 alone on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28-days for a total of six cycles (single agent cohort), and after protocol amendment a combination therapy with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 was administered every 21 days for a total of eight cycles (combined regimen cohort). Treatment was planned to start within eight weeks after curative intent resection. Adverse events, disease-free survival and overall survival were assessed.ResultsOverall 30 patients were enrolled in the study from August 2008 and last patient was enrolled at 2nd December 2014. The follow-up of the patients ended at 31st December 2016. The first 9 patients received single-agent gemcitabine. The interim analysis met the predefined feasibility criteria and, from September 2010 on, the second group of 21 patients received the combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine. In the single-agent cohort with gemcitabine the median relative dose intensity (RDI) was 100% (IQR 88.3–100). Patients treated with the combination cisplatin-gemcitabine received an overall median RDI of 100% (IQR 50–100) for cisplatin and 100% (IQR 75–100) for gemcitabine respectively. The most significant non-hematological adverse events (grade 3 or 4) were fatigue (20%), infections during neutropenia (10%), and two cases of biliary sepsis (7%). Abnormal liver function was seen in 10% of the patients. One patient died due to infectious complications during treatment with cisplatin and gemcitabine. The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 14.9 months (95% CI 0–33.8) with a corresponding 3-year DFS of 43.1 ± 9.1%. The median overall survival (OS) was 40.6 months (95% CI 18.8–62.3) with a 3-year OS of 55.7 ± 9.2%. No statistically significant differences in survival were seen between the two treatment cohorts.ConclusionAdjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine with or without cisplatin was well tolerated and resulted in promising survival of the patients.Trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered on 25th June 2009 at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01073839).

The BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib is an effective drug in patients with BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma, but resistance occurs after a median of 6 months. The anti-CTLA4-antibody, ipilimumab, is a standard first-line and second-line treatment option in Europe, with a median time to response of 2-3 months, but some patients show rapid clinical deterioration before that. The aim of this analysis was to identify prognostic markers for survival after failure of vemurafenib treatment to identify patients who have a sufficient life expectancy to respond to new immunotherapy treatments. We retrospectively analysed 101 consecutive unselected patients treated with vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma at a single institution. The association between clinical parameters and death within 3 months after cessation of vemurafenib (n=69) was assessed by binary logistic and Cox regression. Of the patients, 45% died within 3 months of progression on vemurafenib. Elevated baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase, absence of normalization of serum lactate dehydrogenase on vemurafenib therapy, performance status of at least 2 at progression and time from primary tumour to metastatic disease less than 5 years were identified as poor prognostic markers. In an exploratory tumour growth kinetics analysis (n=16), we found that following cessation of vemurafenib, approximately a third each showed a stable, decelerated or accelerated rate of tumour growth. Patients with these poor prognostic markers are unlikely to have sufficient life expectancy to complete ipilimumab treatment after failure with vemurafenib. Consideration needs to be given to the elective use of immunotherapy before patients become resistant to vemurafenib. This requires prospective randomized evaluation. Our tumour growth kinetics analysis requires confirmation; however, it may suggest that intermittent vemurafenib treatment should be investigated in clinical trials.