Summary Background Patients with melanoma harbouring Val600 BRAF mutations benefit from treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, no targeted treatments exist for patients with BRAF wild-type tumours, ...including those with NRAS mutations. We aimed to assess the use of MEK162, a small-molecule MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with NRAS -mutated or Val600 BRAF -mutated advanced melanoma. Methods In our open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study, we assigned patients with NRAS -mutated or BRAF -mutated advanced melanoma to one of three treatment arms on the basis of mutation status. Patients were enrolled at university hospitals or private cancer centres in Europe and the USA. The three arms were: twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for NRAS -mutated melanoma, twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for BRAF -mutated melanoma, and twice-daily MEK162 60 mg for BRAF -mutated melanoma. Previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors was permitted, but previous MEK inhibitor therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective response (ie, a complete response or confirmed partial response). We report data for the 45 mg groups. We assessed clinical activity in all patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 and in patients assessable for response (with two available CT scans). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01320085 , and is currently recruiting additional patients with NRAS mutations (based on a protocol amendment). Findings Between March 31, 2011, and Jan 17, 2012, we enrolled 71 patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 45 mg. By Feb 29, 2012 (data cutoff), median follow-up was 3·3 months (range 0·6–8·7; IQR 2·2–5·0). No patients had a complete response. Six (20%) of 30 patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma had a partial response (three confirmed) as did eight (20%) of 41 patients with BRAF -mutated melanoma (two confirmed). The most frequent adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (18 60% patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and 15 37% patients with the BRAF -mutated melanoma), rash (six 20% and 16 39%), peripheral oedema (ten 33% and 14 34%), facial oedema (nine 30% and seven 17%), diarrhoea (eight 27% and 15 37%), and creatine phosphokinase increases (11 37% and nine 22%). Increased creatine phosphokinase was the most common grade 3–4 adverse event (seven 23% and seven 17%). Four patients had serious adverse events (two per arm), which included diarrhoea, dehydration, acneiform dermatitis, general physical deterioration, irregular heart rate, malaise, and small intestinal perforation. No deaths occurred from treatment-related causes. Interpretation To our knowledge, MEK162 is the first targeted therapy to show activity in patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and might offer a new option for a cancer with few effective treatments. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
Summary Preferred treatment strategies for advanced-stage squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck have shifted from surgery to organ-preservation approaches such as radiotherapy, which can be ...combined with chemotherapy or giving of biologically modifying molecules. Preclinical and clinical researchers aim to customise these treatments on the basis of biological tumour characteristics, including tumour cell proliferation, hypoxia, and apoptosis—important resistance mechanisms for cytotoxic antitumour therapy. Monitoring of these biologically relevant variables before and early during treatment could improve patient selection for specific treatment strategies and guide adaptation of treatment at an early stage. PET provides a non-invasive molecular imaging method with the potential ability to undertake repetitive non-invasive quantification of relevant tumour characteristics. We discuss the role of PET scanning and available radiopharmaceutical tracers for treatment selection, early response monitoring, and treatment adaptation in head and neck cancer.
The tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib and sunitinib have efficacy in several types of cancer. Recent studies indicate that these agents affect the immune system. The way it affects the immune ...response to influenza vaccination is unknown. The aim of this study was to elucidate the specific immune response to seasonal flu vaccination in cancer patients treated with sunitinib or sorafenib.
Sunitinib- or sorafenib-treated cancer patients were vaccinated against seasonal influenza with an inactivated vaccine. Healthy controls and patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) without systemic treatment (nontreated mRCC controls) were included for comparison. Antibody responses were measured at baseline, day 8, and day 22 by a standard hemagglutination inhibition assay and cellular T-cell responses at baseline and day 8 by proliferation assay and secretion of cytokines.
Forty subjects were enrolled: 16 patients treated with sunitinib, 6 patients with sorafenib, 7 nontreated mRCC controls, and 11 healthy controls. All patients treated with sunitinib and sorafenib developed seroprotection rates comparable with controls. Functional T-cell reactivity was observed in all groups, except for patients treated with sorafenib who showed a decreased proliferation rate and IFN-γ/IL-2 production and increased IL-10 compared with healthy controls.
We conclude that influenza vaccination should be recommended to cancer patients treated with sunitinib or sorafenib.
PDF