BACKGROUND Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas are common findings in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors. METHODS We performed a molecular analysis to identify oncogenic mutations (HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, CDKN2A, and TP53) in the lesions from patients treated with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. An analysis of an independent validation set and functional studies with BRAF inhibitors in the presence of the prevalent RAS mutation was also performed. RESULTS Among 21 tumor samples, 13 had RAS mutations (12 in HRAS). In a validation set of 14 samples, 8 had RAS mutations (4 in HRAS). Thus, 60% (21 of 35) of the specimens harbored RAS mutations, the most prevalent being HRAS Q61L. Increased proliferation of HRAS Q61L–mutant cell lines exposed to vemurafenib was associated with mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)–pathway signaling and activation of ERK-mediated transcription. In a mouse model of HRAS Q61L–mediated skin carcinogenesis, the vemurafenib analogue PLX4720 was not an initiator or a promoter of carcinogenesis but accelerated growth of the lesions harboring HRAS mutations, and this growth was blocked by concomitant treatment with a MEK inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS Mutations in RAS, particularly HRAS, are frequent in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas that develop in patients treated with vemurafenib. The molecular mechanism is consistent with the paradoxical activation of MAPK signaling and leads to accelerated growth of these lesions. (Funded by Hoffmann–La Roche and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00405587, NCT00949702, NCT01001299, and NCT01006980.)

PURPOSE To assess pharmacodynamic effects and intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma, leading to an understanding of the mechanism of action of vemurafenib and ultimately to optimization of metastatic melanoma therapy. METHODS In the phase II clinical study NP22657 (BRIM-2), patients received oral doses of vemurafenib (960 mg twice per day). Serial biopsies were collected to study changes in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, cell-cycle progression, and factors causing intrinsic or acquired resistance by immunohistochemistry, DNA sequencing, or somatic mutation profiling. Results Vemurafenib inhibited MAPK signaling and cell-cycle progression. An association between the decrease in extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) phosphorylation and objective response was observed in paired biopsies (n = 22; P = .013). Low expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog showed a modest association with lower response. Baseline mutations in MEK1(P124) coexisting with BRAF(V600) were noted in seven of 92 samples; their presence did not preclude objective tumor responses. Acquired resistance to vemurafenib associated with reactivation of MAPK signaling as observed by elevated ERK1/2 phosphorylation levels in progressive lesions and the appearance of secondary NRAS(Q61) mutations or MEK1(Q56P) or MEK1(E203K) mutations. These two activating MEK1 mutations had not previously been observed in vivo in biopsies of progressive melanoma tumors. CONCLUSION Vemurafenib inhibits tumor proliferation and oncogenic BRAF signaling through the MAPK pathway. Acquired resistance results primarily from MAPK reactivation driven by the appearance of secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK1 in subsets of patients. The data suggest that inhibition downstream of BRAF should help to overcome acquired resistance.

Background. Vemurafenib has been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced BRAF V600E -mutant melanoma. This report by the Vemurafenib Dermatology Working Group presents the characteristics of dermatologic adverse events (AEs) that occur in vemurafenib-treated patients, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cuSCC). Methods. Dermatologic AEs were assessed from three ongoing trials of BRAF V600E mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Histologic central review and genetic characterization were completed for a subset of cuSCC lesions. Results. A total of 520 patients received vemurafenib. The most commonly reported AEs were dermatologic AEs, occurring in 92%-95% of patients. Rash was the most common AE (64%-75% of patients), and the most common types were rash not otherwise specified, erythema, maculopapular rash, and folliculitis. Rash development did not appear to correlate with tumor response. Photosensitivity occurred in 35%-63% of patients, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) occurred in 8%-10% of patients. The severity of rash, photosensitivity, and PPE were mainly grade 1 or 2. In all, 19%-26% of patients developed cuSCC, mostly keratoacanthomas (KAs). The majority of patients with cuSCC continued therapy without dose reduction after resection. Genetic analysis of 29 cuSCC/KA samples demonstrated HRAS mutations in 41%. Conclusions. Dermatologic AEs associated with vemurafenib treatment in patients with melanoma were generally manageable with supportive care measures. Dose interruptions and/or reductions were required in Ͻ10% of patients. The Oncologist 2013;18:314 -322 Implications for Practice: Vemurafenib has been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma. Skin toxicity is common with vemurafenib therapy, and the majority of patients are able to tolerate and continue therapy following symptomatic and/or local management (e.g., surgical resection). Clinicians should be aware of these toxicities to better educate and manage their patients.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a new circulating tumor biomarker which might be used as a prognostic biomarker in a way similar to circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Here, we used the high prevalence of TP53 mutations in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) to compare ctDNA and CTC detection rates and prognostic value in metastatic TNBC patients. Forty patients were enrolled before starting a new line of treatment. TP53 mutations were characterized in archived tumor tissues and in plasma DNA using two next generation sequencing (NGS) platforms in parallel. Archived tumor tissue was sequenced successfully for 31/40 patients. TP53 mutations were found in 26/31 (84%) of tumor samples. The same mutation was detected in the matched plasma of 21/26 (81%) patients with an additional mutation found only in the plasma for one patient. Mutated allele fractions ranged from 2 to 70% (median 5%). The observed correlation between the two NGS approaches (R 2 5 0.903) suggested that ctDNA levels data were quantitative. Among the 27 patients with TP53 mutations, CTC count was 1 in 19 patients (70%) and 5 in 14 patients (52%). ctDNA levels had no prognostic impact on time to progression (TTP) or overall survival (OS), whereas CTC numbers were correlated with OS (p 5 0.04) and marginally with TTP (p 5 0.06). Performance status and elevated LDH also had significant prognostic impact. Here, absence of prognostic impact of baseline ctDNA level suggests that mechanisms of ctDNA release in metastatic TNBC may involve, beyond tumor burden, biological features that do not dramatically affect patient outcome.Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for approximately 15-20% of all breast cancer cases and are defined by a lack of both estrogen and progesterone receptors expression, and the absence of HER2 amplification. 1 Notwithstanding high molecular heterogeneity within this breast cancer subtype, TNBCs frequently display TP53 inactivating mutations, and adverse clinico-pathological features. 2 At the metastatic stage, TNBC is associated with worse prognosis than hormone receptor-positive or HER2-amplified metastatic breast cancers. Conventional systemic chemotherapy is the only therapeutic option for most metastatic TNBC patients as there are no validated targetable molecular alterations. 3 In the absence of a predictive biomarker of response to chemotherapy, current treatment management consists of radiological evaluation of metastases burden at regular intervals. In this clinical setting, blood-borne dynamic biomarkers with