A secondary RET mutation in the activation loop conferring resistance to vandetanib

Resistance to vandetanib, a type I RET kinase inhibitor, developed in a patient with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma harboring a CCDC6-RET fusion that initially exhibited a response to treatment. The resistant tumor acquired a secondary mutation resulting in a serine-to-phenylalanine substitution at codon 904 in the activation loop of the RET kinase domain. The S904F mutation confers resistance to vandetanib by increasing the ATP affinity and autophosphorylation activity of RET kinase. A reduced interaction with the drug is also observed in vitro for the S904F mutant by thermal shift assay. A crystal structure of the S904F mutant reveals a small hydrophobic core around F904 likely to enhance basal kinase activity by stabilizing an active conformer. Our findings indicate that missense mutations in the activation loop of the kinase domain are able to increase kinase activity and confer drug resistance through allosteric effects

Receptor Tyrosine Kinases in Osteosarcoma: 2019 Update

The primary conclusions of our 2014 contribution to this series were as follows: Multiple receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) likely contribute to aggressive phenotypes in osteosarcoma and, therefore, inhibition of multiple RTKs is likely necessary for successful clinical outcomes. Inhibition of multiple RTKs may also be useful to overcome resistance to inhibitors of individual RTKs as well as resistance to conventional chemotherapies. Different combinations of RTKs are likely important in individual patients. AXL, EPHB2, FGFR2, IGF1R, and RET were identified as promising therapeutic targets by our in vitro phosphoproteomic/siRNA screen of 42 RTKs in the highly metastatic LM7 and 143B human osteosarcoma cell lines. This chapter is intended to provide an update on these topics as well as the large number of osteosarcoma clinical studies of inhibitors of multiple tyrosine kinases (multi-TKIs) that were recently published

NTRK fusion-positive cancers and TRK inhibitor therapy

NTRK gene fusions involving either NTRK1, NTRK2 or NTRK3 (encoding the neurotrophin receptors TRKA, TRKB and TRKC, respectively) are oncogenic drivers of various adult and paediatric tumour types. These fusions can be detected in the clinic using a variety of methods, including tumour DNA and RNA sequencing and plasma cell-free DNA profiling. The treatment of patients with NTRK fusion-positive cancers with a first-generation TRK inhibitor, such as larotrectinib or entrectinib, is associated with high response rates (>75%), regardless of tumour histology. First-generation TRK inhibitors are well tolerated by most patients, with toxicity profiles characterized by occasional off-tumour, on-target adverse events (attributable to TRK inhibition in non-malignant tissues). Despite durable disease control in many patients, advanced-stage NTRK fusion-positive cancers eventually become refractory to TRK inhibition; resistance can be mediated by the acquisition of NTRK kinase domain mutations. Fortunately, certain resistance mutations can be overcome by second-generation TRK inhibitors, including LOXO-195 and TPX-0005 that are being explored in clinical trials. In this Review, we discuss the biology of NTRK fusions, strategies to target these drivers in the treatment-naive and acquired-resistance disease settings, and the unique safety profile of TRK inhibitors

Phase I trials as valid therapeutic options for patients with cancer

For many years, oncology phase I trials have been referred to as 'toxicity trials' and have been believed to have low clinical utility other than that of establishing the adverse event profile of novel therapeutic agents. The traditional distinction of clinical trials into three phases has been challenged in the past few years by the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapies into the routine management of patients with cancer. This transformation has especially affected early phase trials, leading to the current situation in which response rates are increasingly reported from phase I trials. In this Perspectives, we highlight key elements of phase I trials and discuss how each one of them contributes to a new paradigm whereby preliminary measurements of the clinical benefit from a novel treatment can be obtained in current phase I trials, which can therefore be considered to have a therapeutic intent