F Stephen Hodi1, Christopher L Corless, Anita Giobbie-Hurder, Jonathan A Fletcher, Meijun Zhu, Adrian Marino-Enriquez, Philip Friedlander, Rene Gonzalez, Jeffrey S Weber, Thomas F Gajewski, Steven J O'Day, Kevin B Kim, Donald Lawrence, Keith T Flaherty, Jason J Luke, Frances A Collichio, Marc S Ernstoff, Michael C Heinrich, Carol Beadling, Katherine A Zukotynski, Jeffrey T Yap, Annick D Van den Abbeele, George D Demetri, David E Fisher. 1. F. Stephen Hodi, Anita Giobbie-Hurder, Philip Friedlander, Jason J. Luke, Katherine A. Zukotynski, Jeffrey T. Yap, Annick D. Van den Abbeele, and George D. Demetri, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Jonathan A. Fletcher, Meijun Zhu, and Adrian Marino-Enriquez, Brigham and Women's Hospital; Donald Lawrence, Keith T. Flaherty, and David E. Fisher, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Christopher L. Corless, Michael C. Heinrich, and Carol Beadling, Portland Veterans Administration Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Philip Friedlander, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY; Rene Gonzalez, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO; Jeffrey S. Weber, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL; Thomas F. Gajewski, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Steven J. O'Day, Beverly Hills Cancer Center, Beverly Hills, CA; Kevin B. Kim, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Frances A. Collichio, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and Marc S. Ernstoff, Geisel School of Medicine and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Hanover, NH.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Philip Friedlander; Christopher L Corless; Michael C Heinrich; Suzanne Mac Rae; Andrea Kruse; Jyothi Jagannathan; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Elsa F Velazquez; George D Demetri; David E Fisher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John A Curtin; Jane Fridlyand; Toshiro Kageshita; Hetal N Patel; Klaus J Busam; Heinz Kutzner; Kwang-Hyun Cho; Setsuya Aiba; Eva-Bettina Bröcker; Philip E LeBoit; Dan Pinkel; Boris C Bastian Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Richard D Carvajal; Cristina R Antonescu; Jedd D Wolchok; Paul B Chapman; Ruth-Ann Roman; Jerrold Teitcher; Katherine S Panageas; Klaus J Busam; Bartosz Chmielowski; Jose Lutzky; Anna C Pavlick; Anne Fusco; Lauren Cane; Naoko Takebe; Swapna Vemula; Nancy Bouvier; Boris C Bastian; Gary K Schwartz Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nancy E Thomas; Anne Kricker; Lynn From; Klaus Busam; Robert C Millikan; Mary E Ritchey; Bruce K Armstrong; Julia Lee-Taylor; Loraine D Marrett; Hoda Anton-Culver; Roberto Zanetti; Stefano Rosso; Richard P Gallagher; Terence Dwyer; Chris Goumas; Peter A Kanetsky; Colin B Begg; Irene Orlow; Homer Wilcox; Susan Paine; Marianne Berwick Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Carol Beadling; Erick Jacobson-Dunlop; F Stephen Hodi; Claudia Le; Andrea Warrick; Janice Patterson; Ajia Town; Amy Harlow; Frank Cruz; Sharl Azar; Brian P Rubin; Susan Muller; Rob West; Michael C Heinrich; Christopher L Corless Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Helen Davies; Graham R Bignell; Charles Cox; Philip Stephens; Sarah Edkins; Sheila Clegg; Jon Teague; Hayley Woffendin; Mathew J Garnett; William Bottomley; Neil Davis; Ed Dicks; Rebecca Ewing; Yvonne Floyd; Kristian Gray; Sarah Hall; Rachel Hawes; Jaime Hughes; Vivian Kosmidou; Andrew Menzies; Catherine Mould; Adrian Parker; Claire Stevens; Stephen Watt; Steven Hooper; Rebecca Wilson; Hiran Jayatilake; Barry A Gusterson; Colin Cooper; Janet Shipley; Darren Hargrave; Katherine Pritchard-Jones; Norman Maitland; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Gregory J Riggins; Darell D Bigner; Giuseppe Palmieri; Antonio Cossu; Adrienne Flanagan; Andrew Nicholson; Judy W C Ho; Suet Y Leung; Siu T Yuen; Barbara L Weber; Hilliard F Seigler; Timothy L Darrow; Hugh Paterson; Richard Marais; Christopher J Marshall; Richard Wooster; Michael R Stratton; P Andrew Futreal Journal: Nature Date: 2002-06-09 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: S Ugurel; R Hildenbrand; A Zimpfer; P La Rosée; P Paschka; A Sucker; P Keikavoussi; J C Becker; W Rittgen; A Hochhaus; D Schadendorf Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-04-25 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: J Cho; S Y Kim; Y J Kim; M H Sim; S T Kim; N K D Kim; K Kim; W Park; J H Kim; K-T Jang; J Lee Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Hui Min Yang; Susan J Hsiao; David F Schaeffer; Chi Lai; Helen E Remotti; David Horst; Mahesh M Mansukhani; Basil A Horst Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 7.842