Description: Purpose To assess pharmacodynamic effects and intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma, leading to an understanding of the mechanism of action of vemurafenib and ultimately to optimization of metastatic melanoma therapy. Methods In the phase II clinical study NP22657 (BRIM-2), patients received oral doses of vemurafenib (960 mg twice per day). Serial biopsies were collected to study changes in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, cell-cycle progression, and factors causing intrinsic or acquired resistance by immunohistochemistry, DNA sequencing, or somatic mutation profiling. Results Vemurafenib inhibited MAPK signaling and cell-cycle progression. An association between the decrease in extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) phosphorylation and objective response was observed in paired biopsies (n = 22; P = .013). Low expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog showed a modest association with lower response. Baseline mutations in MEK1 P124 coexisting with BRAF V600 were noted in seven of 92 samples; their presence did not preclude objective tumor responses. Acquired resistance to vemurafenib associated with reactivation of MAPK signaling as observed by elevated ERK1/2 phosphorylation levels in progressive lesions and the appearance of secondary NRAS Q61 mutations or MEK1 Q56P or MEK1 E203K mutations. These two activating MEK1 mutations had not previously been observed in vivo in biopsies of progressive melanoma tumors. Conclusion Vemurafenib inhibits tumor proliferation and oncogenic BRAF signaling through the MAPK pathway. Acquired resistance results primarily from MAPK reactivation driven by the appearance of secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK1 in subsets of patients. The data suggest that inhibition downstream of BRAF should help to overcome acquired resistance.

Description: Purpose Cancer-related expenditures are increasing health care costs. Determining how patients with cancer, oncologists, and the general public view Medicare spending and whether they would support cost-containment measures is important to identifying acceptable approaches to reducing health care expenditures. Methods Patients with cancer treated at an academic medical center, a random national sample of oncologists, and the general public were surveyed between July 2012 and March 2013 about causes of high health care costs and proposed cost-control measures. Results Three hundred twenty-six patients (response rate, 72%), 250 oncologists (response rate, 55%), and 891 members of the general public (response rate, 50%) completed surveys. The majority thought Medicare spending was a moderate or big problem (75.8% of patients; 97.2% of oncologists; 75.3% of the general public) and thought Medicare could spend less without causing harm (65.6% of patients; 74.0% of oncologists; 69.7% of the general public). There was broad consensus that drug and insurance companies' profits added to costs, although physicians, hospitals, and patients were also perceived as sharing responsibility. More than 75% of respondents supported enabling Medicare to refuse reimbursement for more expensive treatment if less costly, equally effective treatment was available. Respondents generally favored means testing Medicare cost sharing but, except for oncologists, resisted the idea of an independent oversight panel. All groups opposed annual ceilings on Medicare spending per patient. Conclusion The majority of respondents view Medicare costs as a substantial problem and that all players in the system, including providers, contribute to high costs. Most thought Medicare could spend less without causing harm. Overall, respondents strongly favored not paying for more expensive treatments when cheaper ones are equally effective.

Description: Purpose To evaluate the breast cancer screening efficacy of mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a high-risk population and in various population subgroups. Patients and Methods In a single-center, prospective, nonrandomized comparison study, BRCA mutation carriers and women with a high familial risk (〉 20% lifetime risk) for breast cancer were offered screening with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI every 12 months. Diagnostic performance was compared between individual modalities and their combinations. Further comparisons were based on subpopulations dichotomized by screening rounds, mutation status, age, and breast density. Results There were 559 women with 1,365 complete imaging rounds included in this study. The sensitivity of MRI (90.0%) was significantly higher ( P 〈 .001) than that of mammography (37.5%) and ultrasound (37.5%). Of 40 cancers, 18 (45.0%) were detected by MRI alone. Two cancers were found by mammography alone (a ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] with microinvasion and a DCIS with 〈 10-mm invasive areas). This did not lead to a significant increase of sensitivity compared with using MRI alone ( P = .15). No cancers were detected by ultrasound alone. Similarly, of 14 DCISs, all were detected by MRI, whereas mammography and ultrasound each detected five DCISs (35.7%). Age, mutation status, and breast density had no influence on the sensitivity of MRI and did not affect the superiority of MRI over mammography and ultrasound. Conclusion MRI allows early detection of familial breast cancer regardless of patient age, breast density, or risk status. The added value of mammography is limited, and there is no added value of ultrasound in women undergoing MRI for screening.

Description: Purpose Combining cisplatin or cetuximab with radiation improves overall survival (OS) of patients with stage III or IV head and neck carcinoma (HNC). Cetuximab plus platinum regimens also increase OS in metastatic HNC. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group launched a phase III trial to test the hypothesis that adding cetuximab to the radiation-cisplatin platform improves progression-free survival (PFS). Patients and Methods Eligible patients with stage III or IV HNC were randomly assigned to receive radiation and cisplatin without (arm A) or with (arm B) cetuximab. Acute and late reactions were scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3). Outcomes were correlated with patient and tumor features and markers. Results Of 891 analyzed patients, 630 were alive at analysis (median follow-up, 3.8 years). Cetuximab plus cisplatin-radiation, versus cisplatin-radiation alone, resulted in more frequent interruptions in radiation therapy (26.9% v 15.1%, respectively); similar cisplatin delivery (mean, 185.7 mg/m 2 v 191.1 mg/m 2 , respectively); and more grade 3 to 4 radiation mucositis (43.2% v 33.3%, respectively), rash, fatigue, anorexia, and hypokalemia, but not more late toxicity. No differences were found between arms A and B in 30-day mortality (1.8% v 2.0%, respectively; P = .81), 3-year PFS (61.2% v 58.9%, respectively; P = .76), 3-year OS (72.9% v 75.8%, respectively; P = .32), locoregional failure (19.9% v 25.9%, respectively; P = .97), or distant metastasis (13.0% v 9.7%, respectively; P = .08). Patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC), compared with patients with p16-negative OPC, had better 3-year probability of PFS (72.8% v 49.2%, respectively; P 〈 .001) and OS (85.6% v 60.1%, respectively; P 〈 .001), but tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression did not distinguish outcome. Conclusion Adding cetuximab to radiation-cisplatin did not improve outcome and hence should not be prescribed routinely. PFS and OS were higher in patients with p16-positive OPC, but outcomes did not differ by EGFR expression.

Description: Purpose To provide a review of the clinical data, controversies, and limitations that underpin current recommendations for approaches to larynx preservation for locally advanced larynx cancer requiring total laryngectomy. Methods The key findings from pivotal randomized controlled trials are discussed, including quality of life, late effects, and function assessments. Trials investigating taxane inclusion in induction chemotherapy and trials of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition for radiosensitization are put into perspective for larynx cancer. Controversies in the management of T4 primaries and the opportunities for conservation laryngeal surgery are reviewed. Results There are data from clinical trials to support induction chemotherapy, followed by radiotherapy (preferred approach in Europe) and concomitant cisplatin plus radiotherapy (preferred in North America) for nonsurgical preservation of the larynx. Treatment intensification by a sequential approach of induction, followed by concomitant treatment, is investigational. Transoral laryngeal microsurgery and transoral robotic partial laryngectomy have application in selected patients. Conclusion The management of locally advanced larynx cancer is challenging and requires an experienced multidisciplinary team for initial evaluation, response assessment, and support during and after treatment to achieve optimal function, quality of life, and overall survival. Patient expectations, in addition to tumor extent, pretreatment laryngeal function, and coexisting chronic disease, are critical factors in selecting surgical or nonsurgical primary treatment.

Description: The toxicities of immunotherapy for cancer are as diverse as the type of treatments that have been devised. These range from cytokine therapies that induce capillary leakage to vaccines associated with low levels of autoimmunity to cell therapies that can induce damaging cross-reactivity with normal tissue to checkpoint protein inhibitors that induce immune-related adverse events that are autoinflammatory in nature. The thread that ties these toxicities together is their mechanism-based immune nature and the T-cell–mediated adverse events seen. The basis for the majority of these adverse events is a hyperactivated T-cell response with reactivity directed against normal tissue, resulting in the generation of high levels of CD4 T-helper cell cytokines or increased migration of cytolytic CD8 T cells within normal tissues. The T-cell immune response is not tissue specific and may reflect a diffuse expansion of the T-cell repertoire that induces cross-reactivity with normal tissue, effectively breaking tolerance that is active with cytokines, vaccines, and checkpoint protein inhibitors and passive in the case of adoptive cell therapy. Cytokines seem to generate diffuse and nonspecific T-cell reactivity, whereas checkpoint protein inhibition, vaccines, and adoptive cell therapy seem to activate more specific T cells that interact directly with normal tissues, potentially causing specific organ damage. In this review, we summarize the toxicities that are unique to immunotherapies, emphasizing the need to familiarize the oncology practitioner with the spectrum of adverse events seen with newly approved and emerging modalities.

Description: Purpose We evaluated atypical response patterns and the relationship between overall survival and best overall response measured per immune-related response criteria (irRC) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab in the phase Ib KEYNOTE-001 study (clinical trial information: NCT01295827). Patients and Methods Patients received pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks. Atypical responses were identified by using centrally assessed irRC data in patients with ≥ 28 weeks of imaging. Pseudoprogression was defined as ≥ 25% increase in tumor burden at week 12 (early) or any assessment after week 12 (delayed) that was not confirmed as progressive disease at next assessment. Response was assessed centrally per irRC and RECIST v1.1. Results Of the 655 patients with melanoma enrolled, 327 had ≥ 28 weeks of imaging follow-up. Twenty-four (7%) of these 327 patients had atypical responses (15 [5%] with early pseudoprogression and nine [3%] with delayed pseudoprogression). Of the 592 patients who survived ≥ 12 weeks, 84 (14%) experienced progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC. Two-year overall survival rates were 77.6% in patients with nonprogressive disease per both criteria (n = 331), 37.5% in patients with progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 but nonprogressive disease per irRC (n = 84), and 17.3% in patients with progressive disease per both criteria (n = 177). Conclusion Atypical responses were observed in patients with melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. Based on survival analysis, conventional RECIST might underestimate the benefit of pembrolizumab in approximately 15% of patients; modified criteria that permit treatment beyond initial progression per RECIST v1.1 might prevent premature cessation of treatment.

Description: Purpose Amplifications and mutations in the KIT proto-oncogene in subsets of melanomas provide therapeutic opportunities. Patients and Methods We conducted a multicenter phase II trial of imatinib in metastatic mucosal, acral, or chronically sun-damaged (CSD) melanoma with KIT amplifications and/or mutations. Patients received imatinib 400 mg once per day or 400 mg twice per day if there was no initial response. Dose reductions were permitted for treatment-related toxicities. Additional oncogene mutation screening was performed by mass spectroscopy. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled (24 evaluable). Eight patients (33%) had tumors with KIT mutations, 11 (46%) with KIT amplifications, and five (21%) with both. Median follow-up was 10.6 months (range, 3.7 to 27.1 months). Best overall response rate (BORR) was 29% (21% excluding nonconfirmed responses) with a two-stage 95% CI of 13% to 51%. BORR was significantly greater than the hypothesized null of 5% and statistically significantly different by mutation status (7 of 13 or 54% KIT mutated v 0% KIT amplified only). There were no statistical differences in rates of progression or survival by mutation status or by melanoma site. The overall disease control rate was 50% but varied significantly by KIT mutation status (77% mutated v 18% amplified). Four patients harbored pretreatment NRAS mutations, and one patient acquired increased KIT amplification after treatment. Conclusion Melanomas that arise on mucosal, acral, or CSD skin should be assessed for KIT mutations. Imatinib can be effective when tumors harbor KIT mutations, but not if KIT is amplified only. NRAS mutations and KIT copy number gain may be mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to imatinib.