Differential Activity of the KRAS Oncogene by Method of Activation: Implications for Signaling and Therapeutic Intervention

Despite having been identified over thirty years ago and definitively established as having a critical role in driving tumor growth and predicting for resistance to therapy, the KRAS oncogene remains a target in cancer for which there is no effective treatment. KRas is activated b y mutations at a few sites, primarily amino acid substitutions at codon 12 which promote a constitutively active state. I have found that different amino acid substitutions at codon 12 can activate different KRas downstream signaling pathways, determine clonogenic growth potential and determine patient response to molecularly targeted therapies. Computer modeling of the KRas structure shows that different amino acids substituted at the codon 12 position influences how KRas interacts with its effecters. In the absence of a direct inhibitor of mutant KRas several agents have recently entered clinical trials alone and in combination directly targeting two of the common downstream effecter pathways of KRas, namely the Mapk pathway and the Akt pathway. These inhibitors were evaluated for efficacy against different KRAS activating mutations. An isogenic panel of colorectal cells with wild type KRas replaced with KRas G12C, G12D, or G12V at the endogenous loci differed in sensitivity to Mek and Akt inhibition. In contrast, screening was performed in a broad panel of lung cell lines alone and no correlation was seen between types of activating KRAS mutation due to concurrent oncogenic lesions. To find a new method to inhibit KRAS driven tumors, siRNA screens were performed in isogenic lines with and without active KRas. The knockdown of CNKSR1 (CNK1) showed selective growth inhibition in cells with an oncogenic KRAS. The deletion of CNK1 reduces expression of mitotic cell cycle proteins and arrests cells with active KRas in the G1 phase of the cell cycle similar to the deletion of an activated KRas regardless of activating substitution. CNK1 has a PH domain responsible for localizing it to membrane lipids making KRas potentially amenable to inhibition with small molecules. The work has identified a series of small molecules capable of binding to this PH domain and inhibiting CNK1 facilitated KRas signaling.

A simulation study of the effects of small center enrollment in multi -center clinical trials

Multi-center clinical trials are very common in the development of new drugs and devices. One concern in such trials, is the effect of individual investigational sites enrolling small numbers of patients on the overall result. Can the presence of small centers cause an ineffective treatment to appear effective when treatment-by-center interaction is not statistically significant?^ In this research, simulations are used to study the effect that centers enrolling few patients may have on the analysis of clinical trial data. A multi-center clinical trial with 20 sites is simulated to investigate the effect of a new treatment in comparison to a placebo treatment. Twelve of these 20 investigational sites are considered small, each enrolling less than four patients per treatment group. Three clinical trials are simulated with sample sizes of 100, 170 and 300. The simulated data is generated with various characteristics, one in which treatment should be considered effective and another where treatment is not effective. Qualitative interactions are also produced within the small sites to further investigate the effect of small centers under various conditions.^ Standard analysis of variance methods and the "sometimes-pool" testing procedure are applied to the simulated data. One model investigates treatment and center effect and treatment-by-center interaction. Another model investigates treatment effect alone. These analyses are used to determine the power to detect treatment-by-center interactions, and the probability of type I error.^ We find it is difficult to detect treatment-by-center interactions when only a few investigational sites enrolling a limited number of patients participate in the interaction. However, we find no increased risk of type I error in these situations. In a pooled analysis, when the treatment is not effective, the probability of finding a significant treatment effect in the absence of significant treatment-by-center interaction is well within standard limits of type I error. ^