Kevin Kalinsky1, Sandra Lee2, Krista M Rubin3, Donald P Lawrence3, Anthony J Iafrarte3, Darell R Borger3, Kim A Margolin4, Mario M Leitao5, Ahmad A Tarhini6, Henry B Koon7, Andrew L Pecora8, Anthony J Jaslowski9, Gary I Cohen10, Timothy M Kuzel11, Christopher D Lao12, John M Kirkwood6. 1. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 2. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. City of Hope, Duarte, California. 5. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer, New York, New York. 6. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 8. Hackensack Medical Center, Hackensack, New Jersey. 9. Saint Vincent Hospital, Green Bay, Wisconsin. 10. Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland. 11. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 12. University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: KIT-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib have demonstrated benefits in KIT-mutant (KIT+) mucosal, acral, vulvovaginal, and chronically sun-damaged (CSD) melanoma. Dasatinib has superior preclinical activity in comparison with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors against cells with the most common KIT mutation, exon 11L576P . The ECOG-ACRIN E2607 trial assessed dasatinib in patients with these melanoma subtypes. METHODS: Patients received 70 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily. The primary objective for this 2-stage phase 2 trial was response rate. Stage I was open to KIT+ and wild-type KIT (KIT-) mucosal, acral, and CSD melanoma (n = 57). Stage II accrued only KIT+ tumors (n = 30). To enrich the trial for KIT+ tumors, vulvovaginal melanoma was added, and CSD melanoma was removed from eligibility. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: From May 2009 to December 2010, the first stage enrolled 57 patients. Among the evaluable patients, 3 of 51 (5.9%) achieved a partial response: all were KIT-. Stage II closed early because of slow accrual (November 2011 to December 2015). In stage II, 4 of 22 evaluable patients (18.2%) had a partial response; the median duration was 4.2 months. The median PFS was 2.1 months (n = 73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.9 months). The median OS was 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.0-11.9 months). In exploratory analyses, no differences were seen in PFS or OS with the KIT status or subtype. Dasatinib was discontinued because of adverse events in 9 of 75 patients (12%). CONCLUSIONS: The dasatinib response rate among KIT+ melanoma patients was low. In view of its clinical activity, it is recommended that imatinib remain the KIT tyrosine kinase inhibitor of choice for unresectable KIT+ melanoma. Cancer 2017;123:2688-97.
BACKGROUND: KIT-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib have demonstrated benefits in KIT-mutant (KIT+) mucosal, acral, vulvovaginal, and chronically sun-damaged (CSD) melanoma. Dasatinib has superior preclinical activity in comparison with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors against cells with the most common KIT mutation, exon 11L576P . The ECOG-ACRIN E2607 trial assessed dasatinib in patients with these melanoma subtypes. METHODS:Patients received 70 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily. The primary objective for this 2-stage phase 2 trial was response rate. Stage I was open to KIT+ and wild-type KIT (KIT-) mucosal, acral, and CSD melanoma (n = 57). Stage II accrued only KIT+ tumors (n = 30). To enrich the trial for KIT+ tumors, vulvovaginal melanoma was added, and CSD melanoma was removed from eligibility. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: From May 2009 to December 2010, the first stage enrolled 57 patients. Among the evaluable patients, 3 of 51 (5.9%) achieved a partial response: all were KIT-. Stage II closed early because of slow accrual (November 2011 to December 2015). In stage II, 4 of 22 evaluable patients (18.2%) had a partial response; the median duration was 4.2 months. The median PFS was 2.1 months (n = 73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.9 months). The median OS was 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.0-11.9 months). In exploratory analyses, no differences were seen in PFS or OS with the KIT status or subtype. Dasatinib was discontinued because of adverse events in 9 of 75 patients (12%). CONCLUSIONS: The dasatinib response rate among KIT+ melanomapatients was low. In view of its clinical activity, it is recommended that imatinib remain the KIT tyrosine kinase inhibitor of choice for unresectable KIT+ melanoma. Cancer 2017;123:2688-97.
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: Heikki Joensuu; Piotr Rutkowski; Toshirou Nishida; Sonja E Steigen; Peter Brabec; Lukas Plank; Bengt Nilsson; Chiara Braconi; Andrea Bordoni; Magnus K Magnusson; Jozef Sufliarsky; Massimo Federico; Jon G Jonasson; Isabelle Hostein; Pierre-Paul Bringuier; Jean-Francois Emile Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harriet M Kluger; Arkadiuz Z Dudek; Carrie McCann; Jean Ritacco; Nadine Southard; Lucia B Jilaveanu; Annette Molinaro; Mario Sznol Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Scott E Woodman; Jonathan C Trent; Katherine Stemke-Hale; Alexander J Lazar; Sabrina Pricl; Giovanni M Pavan; Maurizio Fermeglia; Y N Vashisht Gopal; Dan Yang; Donald A Podoloff; Doina Ivan; Kevin B Kim; Nicholas Papadopoulos; Patrick Hwu; Gordon B Mills; Michael A Davies Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2009-08-11 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: A P Algazi; J S Weber; S C Andrews; P Urbas; P N Munster; R C DeConti; J Hwang; V K Sondak; J L Messina; T McCalmont; A I Daud Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 7.640
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: Junna Oba; Sun-Hee Kim; Wei-Lien Wang; Mariana P Macedo; Fernando Carapeto; Meredith A McKean; John Van Arnam; Agda K Eterovic; Shiraj Sen; Charuta R Kale; Xiaoxing Yu; Cara L Haymaker; Mark Routbort; Lauren E Haydu; Chantale Bernatchez; Alexander J Lazar; Elizabeth A Grimm; David S Hong; Scott E Woodman Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-06-05
Authors: Cecilia Lezcano; Alexander N Shoushtari; Charlotte Ariyan; Travis J Hollmann; Klaus J Busam Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Yian Ann Chen; Jamie K Teer; Zeynep Eroglu; Jheng-Yu Wu; John M Koomen; Florian A Karreth; Jane L Messina; Keiran S M Smalley Journal: Semin Cancer Biol Date: 2019-11-02 Impact factor: 15.707
Authors: Julia Rosemann; Lisa Müller; Jonas Weiße; Matthias Kappler; Alexander W Eckert; Markus Glaß; Danny Misiak; Stefan Hüttelmaier; Wolfgang G Ballhausen; Mechthild Hatzfeld; Monika Haemmerle; Tony Gutschner Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 27.401