Lack of Response to Vemurafenib in Melanoma Carrying BRAF K601E Mutation

Vemurafenib has been developed to target common BRAF mutation V600E. It also exerts activity towards some but not all rare BRAF substitutions. Proper cataloguing of drug-sensitive and -insensitive rare mutations remains a challenge, due to low occurrence of these events and inability of commercial PCR-based diagnostic kits to detect the full spectrum of BRAF gene lesions. We considered the results of BRAF exon 15 testing in 1872 consecutive melanoma patients. BRAF mutation was identified in 1,090 (58.2%) cases. While drug-sensitive codon 600 substitutions constituted the majority of BRAF gene lesions (V600E: 962 [51.4%]; V600K: 86 [4.6%]; V600R: 17 [0.9%]), the fourth common BRAF allele was K601E accounting for 9 (0.5%) melanoma cases. The data on BRAF inhibitor sensitivity of tumors with K601E substitution are scarce. We administered single-agent vemurafenib to a melanoma patient carrying BRAF K601E mutation as the first-line treatment. Unfortunately, this therapy did not result in a tumor response. Taken together with already published data, this report indicates lack of benefit from conventional BRAF inhibitors in patients with BRAF K601E mutated melanoma

Drug therapy for hereditary cancers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Tumors arising in patients with hereditary cancer syndromes may have distinct drug sensitivity as compared to their sporadic counterparts. Breast and ovarian neoplasms from <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>mutation carriers are characterized by deficient homologous recombination (HR) of DNA, that makes them particularly sensitive to platinum compounds or inhibitors of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP). Outstandingly durable complete responses to high dose chemotherapy have been observed in several cases of <it>BRCA</it>-related metastatic breast cancer (BC). Multiple lines of evidence indicate that women with <it>BRCA1</it>-related BC may derive less benefit from taxane-based treatment than other categories of BC patients. There is virtually no reports directly assessing drug response in hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) patients; studies involving non-selected (i.e., both sporadic and hereditary) CRC with high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H) suggest therapeutic advantage of irinotecan. Celecoxib has been approved for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Hereditary medullary thyroid cancers (MTC) have been shown to be highly responsive to a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor vandetanib, which exerts specific activity towards mutated RET receptor. Given the rapidly improving accessibility of DNA analysis, it is foreseen that the potential predictive value of cancer-associated germ-line mutations will be increasingly considered in the future studies.</p

Awareness, Understanding, and Adoption of Precision Medicine to Deliver Personalized Treatment for Patients With Cancer: A Multinational Survey Comparison of Physicians and Patients

Two separate multinational surveys of oncologists and patients with cancer were conducted to assess the awareness and use of biomarkers in clinical practice. These data explore the self-reported and physician-assessed levels of patient cancer literacy and factors affecting physicians' choice to use biomarkers in treatment decisions.status: publishe

Phase II multi-institutional randomized trial of docetaxel plus cisplatin with or without fluorouracil in patients with untreated, advanced gastric, or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma

Purpose The purpose of this study was to define the contribution of docetaxel to combination chemotherapy in the outcome of patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We compared the overall response rate (ORR) and safety of docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) with DC plus fluorouracil (DCF) to select either DC or DCF as the experimental treatment in the ensuing phase III part of trial V-325. Patients and Methods In this phase II randomized study, untreated patients with confirmed advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma received either DCF (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1, and fluorouracil 750 mg/m(2)/d as continuous infusion on days 1 to 5) or DC (docetaxel 85 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1) every 3 weeks. An independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) was to select one of the two regimens based primarily on ORR and safety profile. Results Of 158 randomly assigned patients, 155 (DCF, n = 79; DC, n = 76) received treatment. The confirmed ORR was 43% for DCF (n = 79) and 26% for DC (n = 76). Median time to progression was 5.9 months for DCF and 5.0 months for DC. Median overall survival time was 9.6 months for DCF and 10.5 months for DC. The most frequent grade 3 and 4 events per patient included neutropenia (DCF = 86%; DC = 87%) and GI (DCF = 56%; DC = 30%). Conclusion Both regimens were active, but DCF produced a higher confirmed ORR than DC. Toxicity profiles of DCF were considered manageable. The IDMC chose DCF for the phase III part of V-325, which compares DCF with cisplatin plus fluorouracil

Clinical Benefit and Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment in Patients Treated with Cisplatin/S-1 Versus Cisplatin/5-FU: Secondary End Point Results From the First-Line Advanced Gastric Cancer Study (FLAGS)

Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and time to worsening of clinical benefit parameters were evaluated as secondary end points in the phase 3 first-line advanced gastric cancer study (FLAGS) trial of cisplatin/S-1 versus cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer. Methods: The primary PRO end point was the Trial Outcome Index of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric (FACT-Ga). FACT-Ga was completed at the beginning of the first 4 cycles, cycle 6, and then every 3 cycles thereafter. The Chemotherapy Convenience and Satisfaction Questionnaire (CCSQ) was administered before the first 4 cycles; clinical benefit parameters (performance status, weight loss, and anorexia) were assessed at baseline, prior to study drug administration on day 1 of each cycle after cycle 1, and at the end of study treatment. Results: Compliance to questionnaire fulfillment was more than 80 % through cycle 9. Significantly, fewer patients treated with cisplatin/S-1 reported worsened physical well-being (PWB) scores (45.1 versus 51.7 %, p = 0.044) and experienced significantly longer time to worsening in PWB scores, with a median of 4.5 months (95 % confidence interval (CI), 3.1–5.1) compared to 3.0 months (2.8–4.6) with cisplatin/5-FU (CF) (p = 0.01). Patients receiving cisplatin/S-1 also reported significantly higher best and worst score of PWB as well as CCSQ scores and a longer median time to worsening in clinical benefit parameters. Conclusions: Differences in secondary end points of PWB, CCSQ scores, and clinical benefit parameters favoring the cisplatin/S-1 arm provide further evidence for considering this combination a standard therapeutic option for first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe