Search

Background: Melanoma is one of the most aggressive cancers with extremely poor prognosis, and the median survival time for stage IV patients is approximately 6 to 8 months. Unlike cutaneous melanoma, mucosal melanoma is a rare melanoma subtype among Caucasian patients but its incidence remains as high as 22.6% among Chinese patients. Screening specific genetic variations is the guideline to select targeted drugs for the treatment of advanced melanoma, whereas the genetic variation spectrum and potential therapeutic targets for mucosal melanoma are largely unclear. It is urgent to identify promising genetic variants for mucosal melanoma so as to develop effective targeted therapies for this disease., Methods: Tumor samples from 213 Chinese mucosal melanoma patients were involved in this study. P16 INK4a /Cyclin D1/CDK4 copy number was examined using the QuantiGene Plex DNA assay and the correlation between abnormal copy number and clinicopathological parameters was analyzed. Patient-derived xenograft models (PDX) were performed to detect the effects of CDK4/6 inhibitors on the proliferation of mucosal melanoma cells with altered copy number of CDK4 pathway (CDK4, Cyclin D1 and P16 INK4a ). The molecular mechanisms of CDK4/6 inhibitors on the proliferation of mucosal melanoma were analyzed by RNAseq., Results: Among the 213 samples, the amplification rate of CDK4 and CCND1 was 47.0% and 27.7%, respectively, and the deletion rate of P16 INK4a was 57.7%. Patients with more than one genetic abnormality were up to 81.7%. CDK4 pathway gene copy number variation was not associated with the prognosis of patients with mucosal melanoma (P > 0.05). Drug sensitivity tests showed that AT7519, a broad-spectrum CDK inhibitor, and PD0332991, a specific CDK4/6 inhibitor, exhibited higher inhibitory effect on CDK4 signaling pathway abnormal mucosal melanoma cells-derived PDX tumors growth than CDK4 signaling pathway normal ones. RNA-seq analysis showed that CDK4 inhibitors may affect tumor proliferation through multiple signaling pathways., Conclusions: Abnormal copy number of cell cycle related genes is frequently found in mucosal melanoma. CDK4/6 inhibitors significantly suppress the PDX tumor growth with abnormal CDK4 pathway. CDK4 signaling variations predict the effectiveness of CDK4 inhibitors in mucosal melanoma.

Background: Coexistence of enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) and BRAF gene aberrations has been described in many cancer types. In this study, we aim to explore the coexistence status of BRAF V600E mutation and the copy number variation of EZH2 and explore the potential of this combination as a therapeutic target., Methods: A total of 138 cases of melanoma samples harboring BRAF V600E mutation were included, and EZH2 copy numbers were examined by QuantiGenePlex DNA Assays. Clinical pathological distinction between patient groups with or without EZH2 amplification (hereafter referred to as EZH2 gain) was statistically analyzed. The sensitivity of melanoma cell lines and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models containing BRAF V600E mutation with or without EZH2 gain to vemurafenib (BRAF inhibitor), GSK2816126 (EZH2 inhibitor) and a combination of both agents was evaluated., Results: In our cohort, the coexistence rate of BRAF V600E mutation and EZH2 gain was up to 29.0%, and significant differences in overall survival and disease-free survival were found between no EZH2 copy number gain and gain groups (P = 0.038, P = 0.030), gain and high EZH2 copy number gain groups (P = 0.006, P = 0.010). Combination with BRAF and EZH2 inhibition showed better inhibitory efficacy in melanoma prevention compared with vemurafenib monotherapy. More importantly, this improved therapeutic effect was observed especially in melanoma cell lines and PDX models containing concurrently BRAF V600E mutation and EZH2 gain., Conclusions: Coexistence of BRAF V600E mutation and EZH2 gain is rather prevalent in melanoma. Our findings provided evidence for the feasibility of combination therapy with EZH2 and BRAF inhibitors in melanoma with concurrent BRAF V600E mutation and EZH2 gain.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported errors in Figures 2, 3 and Figure 3 'continued'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]