MErCuRIC1: A Phase I study of MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 with cMET inhibitor crizotinib in RASMT and RASWT (with aberrant c-MET) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients.

Background: RAS is mutated (RASMT) in ~55% of mCRC, and phase III studies have shown that patients harbouring RAS mutations do not benefit from anti-EGFR MoAbs. In addition, ~50% of RAS Wild Type (RASWT) will not benefit from the addition of an EGFR MoAb to standard chemotherapy. Hence, novel treatment strategies are urgently needed for RASMT and > 50% of RASWT mCRC patients. c-MET is overexpressed in ~50-60%, amplified in ~2-3% and mutated in ~3-5% of mCRC. Recent preclinical studies have shown that c-MET is an important mediator of resistance to MEK inhibitors (i) in RASMT mCRC, and that combined MEKi/METi resulted in synergistic reduction in tumour growth in RASMT xenograft models (1). A number of recent studies have highlighted the role of c-MET in mediating primary/secondary resistance to anti-EGFR MoAbs in mCRC, suggesting that patient with RASWT tumours with aberrant c-MET (RASWT/c-MET+) may benefit from anti-c-MET targeted therapies (2). These preclinical data supported the further clinical evaluation of combined MEKi/METi treatment in RASMT and RASWT CRC patients with aberrant c-MET signalling (overexpression, amplification or mutation; RASWT/c-MET+). Methods: MErCuRIC1 is a phase I combination study of METi crizotinib with MEKi PD-0325901. The dose escalation phase, utilizing a rolling six design, recruits 12-24 patients with advanced solid tumours and aims to assess safety/toxicity of combination, recommended phase II (RPII) dose, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) (pERK1/2 in PBMC and tumour; soluble c-MET). In the dose expansion phase an additional 30-42 RASMT and RASWT/c-MET mCRC patients with biopsiable disease will be treated at the RPII dose to further evaluate safety, PK, PD and treatment response. In the dose expansion phase additional biopsy and blood samples will be obtained to define mechanisms of response/resistance to crizotinib/PD-0325901 therapy. Enrolment into the dose escalation phase began in December 2014 with cohort 1 still ongoing. EudraCT registry number: 2014-000463-40. (1) Van Schaeybroeck S et al. Cell Reports 2014;7(6):1940-55; (2) Bardelli A et al. Cancer Discov 2013;3(6):658-73. Clinical trial information: 2014-000463-40.

Identification of MET genomic amplification, protein expression and alternative splice isoforms in neuroblastomas

Crizotinib, a dual anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is currently being evaluated for the treatment of neuroblastoma. Its effects are thought to be mediated mainly via its activity against ALK. Although MET genomic/protein expression status might conceivably affect crizotinib efficacy, this issue has hitherto not received attention in neuroblastomas.

The role of JAK1/2-STAT3 as acute resistance mechanism to MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutant colorectal cancer cell lines.

Background: Oncogenic mutations in BRAF occur in 8% of patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) and have been shown to correlate with poor prognosis. In contrast to BRAF mutant (MT) melanoma, where the BRAF inhibitor Vemurafenib (PLX4032) has shown significant increases in response rates and overall survival, only minor responses to Vemurafenib treatment have been reported in BRAFMT CRC. Clear understanding of the vulnerabilities of BRAFMT CRC is important, and identification of druggable targets uniquely required by BRAFMT CRC tumours has the potential to fill a gap in the therapeutic armamentarium of advanced CRC. The aim of this study was to identify novel resistance mechanisms to MEK inhibition in BRAFMT CRC. Methods: Paired BRAFMT/WT RKO and VACO432 CRC cells and non-isogenic BRAFMT LIM2405, WiDR, HT-29 and COLO205 CRC cells were used. Changes in protein expression/activity were assessed by Western Blotting. Interactions between MEK1/2 and JAK1/2 or c-MET inhibition were assessed using the MTT cell viability assays and Flow Cytometry. Apoptosis was measured using Western Blotting for PARP, cleaved caspase 3, 8 and 9, and caspase 3/7 and 8 activity assays. Results: Treatment with MEK1/2 inhibitors AZD6244, trametinib, UO126 and PD98059 resulted in acute increases in STAT3 activity in the BRAFMT RKO and VACO432 cells but not in their BRAFWT clones and this was associated with increases in JAK2 activity. Inhibition of JAK/STAT3 activation using gene specific siRNA or small molecule inhibitors TG101348 or AZD1480, abrogated this survival response and resulted in synergy and significant increases in cell death when combined with MEK1/2 inhibitors AZD6244 or trametinib in BRAFMT CRC cells. The RTK c-MET is activated upstream of STAT3 following MEK1/2 inhibition. Inhibition of c-MET and MEK1/2, using pharmacological inhibitors (crizotinib and AZD6244), results in synergy and increased cell death in BRAFMT CRC cells. Conclusions: We have identified JAK/STAT3 activation as an important escape mechanism for BRAFMT CRC following MEK1/2 inhibition in vitro. Combinations of JAK/MEKi or MET/MEKi can be a potential novel treatment strategy for poor prognostic BRAFMT advanced CRC patients.

A comparison of immunohistochemical assays and FISH in detecting the ALK translocation in diagnostic histological and cytological lung tumor material.

Introduction: Detection of the ALK rearrangement in a solid tumor gives these patients the option of crizotinib as an oral form of anticancer treatment. The current test of choice is fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), but various cheaper and more convenient immunohistochemical (IHC) assays have been proposed as alternatives. 
Methods: Fifteen FISH-positive cases from patients, seven with data on crizotinib therapy and clinical response, were evaluated for the presence of ALK protein using three different commercially available antibodies: D5F3, using the proprietary automated system (Ventana), ALK1 (Dako), and 5A4 (Abcam). A further 14 FISH-negative and three uncertain (<15% rearrangement detected) cases were also retrieved. Of the total 32 specimens, 17 were excisions and 15 were computed tomography-guided biopsies or cytological specimens. All three antibodies were applied to all cases. Antibodies were semiquantitatively scored on intensity, and the proportion of malignant cells stained was documented. Cutoffs were set by receiver operating curve analysis for positivity to optimize correct classification. 
Results: All three IHC assays were 100% specific but sensitivity did vary: D5F3 86%, ALK 79%, 5A4 71%. Intensity was the most discriminating measure overall, with a combination of proportion and intensity not improving the test. No FISH-negative IHC-positive cases were seen. Two FISH-positive cases were negative with all three IHC assays. One of these had been treated with crizotinib and had failed to show clinical response. The other harbored a second driving mutation in the EGFR gene.
Conclusions: IHC with all three antibodies is especially highly specific (100%) although variably sensitive (71%-86%), specifically in cases with scanty material. D5F3 assay was most sensitive in these latter cases. Occasional cases are IHC-positive but FISH-negative, suggesting either inaccuracy of one assay or occasional tumors with ALK rearrangement that do not express high levels of ALK protein.

A Validation Study for the Use of ROS1 Immunohistochemical Staining in Screening for ROS1 Translocations in Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION: The presence of ROS proto-oncogene 1, receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ROS1) rearrangements in lung cancers confers sensitivity to ROS kinase inhibitors, including crizotinib. However, they are rare abnormalities (in ∼1% of non-small cell lung carcinomas) that are typically identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and so screening using immunohistochemical (IHC) staining would be both cost- and time-efficient.

METHODS: A cohort of lung tumors negative for other common mutations related to targeted therapies were screened to assess the sensitivity and specificity of IHC staining in detecting ROS1 gene rearrangements, enriched by four other cases first identified by FISH. A review of published data was also undertaken.

RESULTS: IHC staining was 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval: 48-100) and 83% specific (95% confidence interval: 86-100) overall when an h-score higher than 100 was used. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangements were younger and typically never-smokers, with the tumors all being adenocarcinomas with higher-grade architectural features and focal signet ring morphologic features (two of five). Four patients treated with crizotinib showed a partial response, with three also showing a partial response to pemetrexed. Three of four patients remain alive at 13, 27, and 31 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION: IHC staining can be used to screen for ROS1 gene rearrangements, with patients herein showing a response to crizotinib. Patients with tumors that test positive according to IHC staining but negative according to FISH were also identified, which may have implications for treatment selection.