Search

Mutations assessed at VICC.

Activating NRAS mutations are found in 15% to 20% of melanomas. Immune therapies have become a mainstay in advanced melanoma treatment. We sought to evaluate whether tumor genotype (e.g., NRAS mutations) correlates with benefit from immune therapy in melanoma. We identified 229 patients with melanoma treated with immune therapies [IL2, ipilimumab, or anti-programmed cell death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1)] at three centers and compared clinical outcomes following immune therapy for patients with or without NRAS mutations. Of the 229 patients with melanoma, 60 had NRAS mutation, 53 had BRAF mutation, and 116 had NRAS/BRAF wild type. The NRAS-mutant cohort had superior or a trend to superior outcomes compared with the other cohorts in terms of response to first-line immune therapy (28% vs. 16%, P = 0.04), response to any line of immune therapy (32% vs. 20%, P = 0.07), clinical benefit (response + stable disease lasting ≥24 weeks; 50% vs. 31%, P < 0.01), and progression-free survival (median, 4.1 vs. 2.9 months, P = 0.09). Benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 was particularly marked in the NRAS cohort (clinical benefit rate 73% vs. 35%). In an independent group of patient samples, NRAS-mutant melanoma had higher PD-L1 expression (although not statistically significant) compared with other genotypes (8/12 vs. 9/20 samples with ≥1% expression; 6/12 vs. 6/20 samples with ≥5% expression), suggesting a potential mechanism for the clinical results. This retrospective study suggests that NRAS mutations in advanced melanoma correlate with increased benefit from immune-based therapies compared with other genetic subtypes. If confirmed by prospective studies, this may be explained in part by high rates of PD-L1 expression. Cancer Immunol Res; 3(3); 288–95. ©2015 AACR.

Genes assessed at MGH by SNaPshot Testing1.

Mutations assessed at MSKCC.

Clinical and molecular characteristics of PD-L1 staining cohort.

Activating NRAS mutations are found in 15% to 20% of melanomas. Immune therapies have become a mainstay in advanced melanoma treatment. We sought to evaluate whether tumor genotype (e.g., NRAS mutations) correlates with benefit from immune therapy in melanoma. We identified 229 patients with melanoma treated with immune therapies [IL2, ipilimumab, or anti-programmed cell death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1)] at three centers and compared clinical outcomes following immune therapy for patients with or without NRAS mutations. Of the 229 patients with melanoma, 60 had NRAS mutation, 53 had BRAF mutation, and 116 had NRAS/BRAF wild type. The NRAS-mutant cohort had superior or a trend to superior outcomes compared with the other cohorts in terms of response to first-line immune therapy (28% vs. 16%, P = 0.04), response to any line of immune therapy (32% vs. 20%, P = 0.07), clinical benefit (response + stable disease lasting ≥24 weeks; 50% vs. 31%, P < 0.01), and progression-free survival (median, 4.1 vs. 2.9 months, P = 0.09). Benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 was particularly marked in the NRAS cohort (clinical benefit rate 73% vs. 35%). In an independent group of patient samples, NRAS-mutant melanoma had higher PD-L1 expression (although not statistically significant) compared with other genotypes (8/12 vs. 9/20 samples with ≥1% expression; 6/12 vs. 6/20 samples with ≥5% expression), suggesting a potential mechanism for the clinical results. This retrospective study suggests that NRAS mutations in advanced melanoma correlate with increased benefit from immune-based therapies compared with other genetic subtypes. If confirmed by prospective studies, this may be explained in part by high rates of PD-L1 expression. Cancer Immunol Res; 3(3); 288–95. ©2015 AACR.

Purpose: Knowledge of tumor mutation status is becoming increasingly important for the treatment of cancer, as mutationspecific inhibitors are being developed for clinical use that target only sub-populations of patients with particular tumor genotypes. Melanoma provides a recent example of this paradigm. We report here development, validation, and implementation of an assay designed to simultaneously detect 43 common somatic point mutations in 6 genes (BRAF, NRAS, KIT, GNAQ, GNA11, and CTNNB1) potentially relevant to existing and emerging targeted therapies specifically in melanoma. Methods: The test utilizes the SNaPshot method (multiplex PCR, multiplex primer extension, and capillary electrophoresis) and can be performed rapidly with high sensitivity (requiring 5–10% mutant allele frequency) and minimal amounts of DNA (10–20 nanograms). The assay was validated using cell lines, fresh-frozen tissue, and formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue. Clinical characteristics and the impact on clinical trial enrollment were then assessed for the first 150 melanoma patients whose tumors were genotyped in the Vanderbilt molecular diagnostics lab. Results: Directing this test to a single disease, 90 of 150 (60%) melanomas from sites throughout the body harbored a mutation tested, including 57, 23, 6, 3, and 2 mutations in BRAF, NRAS, GNAQ, KIT, and CTNNB1, respectively. Among BRAF V600 mutations, 79%, 12%, 5%, and 4% were V600E, V600K, V600R, and V600M, respectively. 23 of 54 (43%) patients with mutation harboring metastatic disease were subsequently enrolled in genotype-driven trials. Conclusion: We present development of a simple mutational profiling screen for clinically relevant mutations in melanoma. Adoption of this genetically-informed approach to the treatment of melanoma has already had an impact on clinical trial enrollment and prioritization of therapy for patients with the disease.

9019 Background: NRAS mutant (mut) MM comprises a distinct, molecularly defined cohort of this disease that appears to have a poor prognosis compared to other genetic subsets. In contrast to BRAF mut MM, there are no effective small molecule inhibitors specifically targeting NRAS. Immune based therapy (IT) has become a mainstay in MM treatment, especially in BRAF wild type (WT) patients (pts). Biomarkers to predict which pts will benefit from IT have not been validated. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether genetic subtype (specifically NRAS) has a role in predicting benefit from IT in BRAF WT MM. Methods: We identified 173 pts from 3 institutions who underwent clinical genotyping (exome or PCR based) for NRAS and BRAF mutation from 1/09 – 8/12 and were treated with IT (defined as IL-2, ipilimumab (ipi), or anti-PD-1 (nivolumab, MK3475)/ PD-L1 (MPDL3280A)). Only BRAF WT pts were included. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as RR + stable disease lasting >24 wks to IT (best response as assessed by treating clinicians in any line of IT). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from first line IT. Results: Of the 173 pts, 59 had NRAS mut MM compared to 114 WT/WT (no mutation in NRAS or BRAF). Improved clinical outcomes were seen in the NRAS mut compared to WT/WT cohort in terms of RR (32% vs. 18%, p=0.042), and CBR (49% vs. 30%, p=0.012). Improvements in PFS and OS did not reach statistical significance. By specific IT, NRAS mutation predicted benefit compared to WT/WT for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 (RR 78% vs. 19%, p=0.002; CBR 78% vs. 29%, p=0.013, n=30) and ipi (RR 18% vs. 12%, p=0.315; CBR 41% vs. 22%, p=0.018, n=137). No significant differences were observed with IL-2 (RR 33% vs. 28%, p=0.730; CBR 33% vs. 39%, p=0.741, n=33). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that pts with NRAS mut MM achieve increased clinical benefit from IT compared to pts with BRAF/NRAS WT MM. A larger, prospective analysis is necessary to validate and expand on these results, including those with BRAF mut and KIT mut MM. However, our data suggest that NRAS mutation status may be a biomarker of response to IT in MM and that molecularly targeted immunotherapy may be feasible.