Dataset Information

Metastatic Melanoma Patient-Derived Xenografts Respond to MDM2 Inhibition as a Single Agent or in Combination with BRAF/MEK Inhibition.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Over 60% of patients with melanoma respond to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, but many subsequently progress on these therapies. Second-line targeted therapy is based on BRAF mutation status, but no available agents are available for NRAS, NF1, CDKN2A, PTEN, and TP53 mutations. Over 70% of melanoma tumors have activation of the MAPK pathway due to BRAF or NRAS mutations, while loss or mutation of CDKN2A occurs in approximately 40% of melanomas, resulting in unregulated MDM2-mediated ubiquitination and degradation of p53. Here, we investigated the therapeutic efficacy of over-riding MDM2-mediated degradation of p53 in melanoma with an MDM2 inhibitor that interrupts MDM2 ubiquitination of p53, treating tumor-bearing mice with the MDM2 inhibitor alone or combined with MAPK-targeted therapy.

Experimental design

To characterize the ability of the MDM2 antagonist, KRT-232, to inhibit tumor growth, we established patient-derived xenografts (PDX) from 15 patients with melanoma. Mice were treated with KRT-232 or a combination with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors. Tumor growth, gene mutation status, as well as protein and protein-phosphoprotein changes, were analyzed.

Results

One-hundred percent of the 15 PDX tumors exhibited significant growth inhibition either in response to KRT-232 alone or in combination with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors. Only BRAF^V600WT tumors responded to KRT-232 treatment alone while BRAF^V600E/M PDXs exhibited a synergistic response to the combination of KRT-232 and BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

Conclusions

KRT-232 is an effective therapy for the treatment of either BRAF^WT or PAN ^WT (BRAF^WT, NRAS^WT) TP53^WT melanomas. In combination with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors, KRT-232 may be an effective treatment strategy for BRAF^V600-mutant tumors.

SUBMITTER: Shattuck-Brandt RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7367743 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Resistance to therapy with BRAF kinase inhibitors is associated with reactivation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. To address this problem, we conducted a phase 1 and 2 trial of combined treatment with dabrafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, and trametinib, a selective MAPK kinase (MEK) inhibitor.In this open-label study involving 247 patients with metastatic melanoma and BRAF V600 mutations, we evaluated the pharmacokinetic activity and safety of oral dabrafenib (75 or 150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (1, 1.5, or 2 mg daily) in 85 patients and then randomly assigned 162 patients to receive combination therapy with dabrafenib (150 mg) plus trametinib (1 or 2 mg) or dabrafenib monotherapy. The primary end points were the incidence of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, survival free of melanoma progression, and response. Secondary end points were overall survival and pharmacokinetic activity.Dose-limiting toxic effects were infrequently observed in patients receiving combination therapy with 150 mg of dabrafenib and 2 mg of trametinib (combination 150/2). Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was seen in 7% of patients receiving combination 150/2 and in 19% receiving monotherapy (P=0.09), whereas pyrexia was more common in the combination 150/2 group than in the monotherapy group (71% vs. 26%). Median progression-free survival in the combination 150/2 group was 9.4 months, as compared with 5.8 months in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.62; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response with combination 150/2 therapy was 76%, as compared with 54% with monotherapy (P=0.03).Dabrafenib and trametinib were safely combined at full monotherapy doses. The rate of pyrexia was increased with combination therapy, whereas the rate of proliferative skin lesions was nonsignificantly reduced. Progression-free survival was significantly improved. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01072175.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Immune checkpoint inhibitors, along with BRAF and MEK inhibitors, have dramatically changed the management of and outlook for patients with metastatic melanoma. Analyses of long-term follow-up data and subanalyses based on disease characteristics may inform clinical decision making. METHODS:Reports of clinical trials in metastatic melanoma published between January 1, 2012, and August 30, 2018, were identified using PubMed (terms: melanoma AND [dabrafenib OR trametinib OR vemurafenib OR cobimetinib OR encorafenib OR ipilimumab OR nivolumab OR pembrolizumab]) and were systematically reviewed. Relevant congress proceedings were also assessed. Efficacy data from key phase III trials were analyzed and trends identified. RESULTS:Substantial improvements in objective response rates, progression-free survival, and overall survival were documented across 14 identified publications. Subgroup findings supported that patients with lower disease burden derive greater benefit than patients with more advanced disease, limiting the value of disease burden in the clinical decision-making process. However, these agents consistently conferred benefits despite the presence of poor prognostic features. Several clinically relevant questions remain, including how best to sequence immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination targeted therapy. CONCLUSION:This research, coupled with ongoing investigations, including those on predictive biomarkers, suggests that the treatment decision-making process is likely to become more nuanced. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The management of melanoma has been rapidly advancing with new classes of agents, including immune checkpoint and BRAF inhibitors. With long-term follow-up, their impact on response rates and survival outcomes is well documented. Additional findings from subgroup analyses suggest that patients with lower disease burden derive greater benefit, yet both consistently confer benefit in patients with higher disease burden. Currently, there is a paucity of data to guide first-line treatment selection between immunotherapy and BRAF-targeted therapy in clinical practice or to estimate their impact when sequenced. Gaining these insights will facilitate a more nuanced management approach.