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 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 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.

Description: Purpose Indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for thin melanoma are continually evolving. We present a large multi-institutional study to determine factors predictive of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in thin melanoma. Patients and Methods Retrospective review of the Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database from 1994 to 2012 identified 1,250 patients who had an SLNB and thin melanomas (≤ 1 mm). Clinicopathologic characteristics were correlated with SLN status and outcome. Results SLN metastases were detected in 65 (5.2%) of 1,250 patients. On univariable analysis, rates of Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm, Clark level ≥ IV, ulceration, and absence of regression differed significantly between positive and negative SLN groups (all P 〈 .05). These four variables and mitotic rate were used in multivariable analysis, which demonstrated that Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm ( P = .03), Clark level ≥ IV ( P = .05), and ulceration ( P = .01) significantly predicted SLN metastasis with 6.3%, 7.0%, and 11.6% of the patients with these respective characteristics having SLN disease. Melanomas 〈 0.75 mm had positive SLN rates of 〈 5% regardless of Clark level and ulceration status. Median follow-up was 2.6 years. Melanoma-specific survival was significantly worse for patients with positive versus negative SLNs ( P = .001). Conclusion Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm, Clark level ≥ IV, and ulceration significantly predict SLN disease in thin melanoma. Most SLN metastases (86.2%) occur in melanomas ≥ 0.75 mm, with 6.3% of these patients having SLN disease, whereas in melanomas 〈 0.75 mm, SLN metastasis rates are 〈 5%. By using a 5% metastasis risk threshold, SLNB is indicated for melanomas ≥ 0.75 mm, but further study is needed to define indications for SLNB in melanomas 〈 0.75 mm.

Description: Purpose Nivolumab, a human immunoglobulin G 4 –blocking antibody against the T-cell programmed death-1 checkpoint protein, has activity against metastatic melanoma. Its safety, clinical efficacy, and correlative biomarkers were assessed with or without a peptide vaccine in ipilimumab-refractory and -naive melanoma. Patients and Methods In this phase I study, 90 patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma who were ipilimumab naive and had experienced progression after at least one prior therapy (cohorts 1 to 3, 34 patients) or experienced progression after prior ipilimumab (cohorts 4 to 6, 56 patients) received nivolumab at 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, then every 12 weeks for up to 2 years, with or without a multipeptide vaccine. Results Nivolumab with vaccine was well tolerated and safe at all doses. The RECIST 1.1 response rate for both ipilimumab-refractory and -naive patients was 25%. Median duration of response was not reached at a median of 8.1 months of follow-up. High pretreatment NY-ESO-1 and MART-1–specific CD8 + T cells were associated with progression of disease. At week 12, increased peripheral-blood T regulatory cells and decreased antigen-specific T cells were associated with progression. PD-L1 tumor staining was associated with responses to nivolumab, but negative staining did not rule out a response. Patients who experienced progression after nivolumab could respond to ipilimumab. Conclusion In patients with ipilimumab-refractory or -naive melanoma, nivolumab at 3 mg/kg with or without peptide vaccine was well tolerated and induced responses lasting up to 140 weeks. Responses to nivolumab in ipilimumab-refractory patients or to ipilimumab in nivolumab-refractory patients support combination or sequencing of nivolumab and ipilimumab.

Description: Purpose The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has introduced a TNM staging classification for jejunal-ileal (midgut) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). This classification has not been validated in a population consisting solely of midgut NETs. The purpose of this study was to test the prognostic validity of the classification in such a population. Methods Patients with jejunal and ileocecal NETs who were treated at the Moffitt Cancer Center between 2000 and 2010 were assigned stages (I through IV). Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival (OS) were performed on the basis of TNM stage and pathologic grade. Multivariate modeling was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results We identified 691 patients with jejunal-ileocecal NETs. The AJCC classification in aggregate was highly prognostic for OS ( P 〈 .001). Five-year OS rates for stages I through IV were 100%, 100%, 91%, and 72%, respectively. The survival difference between stages III and IV was significant ( P 〈 .001); the difference between stages I/II versus III was not statistically significant ( P = .1). Among patients with stage IIIB tumors, 5-year survival rates were 95% for resectable tumors versus 78% for unresectable mesenteric tumors ( P = .02). A proliferative threshold of five mitoses per 10 high-power fields (HPF) was of greater prognostic value than a threshold of two mitoses per 10 HPF for discriminating between low- and intermediate-grade tumors. Conclusion Stage I and II midgut NETs are associated with identical survival rates. Stage IIIB tumors are heterogeneous, with significant differences in survival observed between resectable mesenteric lymph nodes versus unresectable masses in the root of the mesentery. A higher mitotic cutoff of five per 10 HPF may lead to improved prognostic differentiation between low- and intermediate-grade tumors. Revisions to the current AJCC staging and grading classification may be warranted.

Description: Purpose In platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (OC), single-agent chemotherapy is standard. Bevacizumab is active alone and in combination. AURELIA is the first randomized phase III trial to our knowledge combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant OC. Patients and Methods Eligible patients had measurable/assessable OC that had progressed 〈 6 months after completing platinum-based therapy. Patients with refractory disease, history of bowel obstruction, or 〉 two prior anticancer regimens were ineligible. After investigators selected chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, weekly paclitaxel, or topotecan), patients were randomly assigned to single-agent chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Crossover to single-agent bevacizumab was permitted after progression with chemotherapy alone. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Results The PFS hazard ratio (HR) after PFS events in 301 of 361 patients was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.60; unstratified log-rank P 〈 .001). Median PFS was 3.4 months with chemotherapy alone versus 6.7 months with bevacizumab-containing therapy. RECIST ORR was 11.8% versus 27.3%, respectively ( P = .001). The OS HR was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.08; P 〈 .174; median OS, 13.3 v 16.6 months, respectively). Grade ≥ 2 hypertension and proteinuria were more common with bevacizumab. GI perforation occurred in 2.2% of bevacizumab-treated patients. Conclusion Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy statistically significantly improved PFS and ORR; the OS trend was not significant. No new safety signals were observed.

Description: Purpose We tested the efficacy and toxicity of cisplatin plus accelerated fractionation with a concomitant boost (AFX-C) versus standard fractionation (SFX) in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (LA-HNC). Patients and Methods Patients had stage III to IV carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx. Radiation therapy schedules were 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks (SFX) or 72 Gy in 42 fractions over 6 weeks (AFX-C). Cisplatin doses were 100 mg/m 2 once every 3 weeks for two (AFX-C) or three (SFX) cycles. Toxicities were scored by using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria 2.0 and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared by using the one-sided log-rank test. Locoregional failure (LRF) and distant metastasis (DM) rates were estimated by using the cumulative incidence method and Gray's test. Results In all, 721 of 743 patients were analyzable (361, SFX; 360, AFX-C). At a median follow-up of 7.9 years (range, 0.3 to 10.1 years) for 355 surviving patients, no differences were observed in OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.18; P = .37; 8-year survival, 48% v 48%), PFS (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.24; P = .52; 8-year estimate, 42% v 41%), LRF (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.38; P = .78; 8-year estimate, 37% v 39%), or DM (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.24; P = .16; 8-year estimate, 15% v 13%). For oropharyngeal cancer, p16-positive patients had better OS than p16-negative patients (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.42; P 〈 .001; 8-year survival, 70.9% v 30.2%). There were no statistically significant differences in the grade 3 to 5 acute or late toxicities between the two arms and p-16 status. Conclusion When combined with cisplatin, AFX-C neither improved outcome nor increased late toxicity in patients with LA-HNC. Long-term high survival rates in p16-positive patients with oropharyngeal cancer support the ongoing efforts to explore deintensification.