• Detection of BRAF mutations in the tumour and serum of patients enrolled in the AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) advanced melanoma phase II study.

      Board, Ruth E; Ellison, G; Orr, M C M; Kemsley, K R; McWalter, G; Blockley, L Y; Dearden, S P; Morris, C; Ranson, Malcolm R; Cantarini, M V; et al. (2009-11-17)
      BACKGROUND: This study investigated the potential clinical utility of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) as a source of BRAF mutation detection in patients enrolled into a phase II study of AZD6244, a specific MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: BRAF mutations were detected using Amplification Refractory Mutation System allele-specific PCR. BRAF mutation status was assessed in serum-derived cfDNA from 126 patients enrolled into the study and from 94 matched tumour samples. RESULTS: Of 94 tumour samples, 45 (47.9%) were found to be BRAF mutation positive (BRAF+). Serum-derived cfDNA was BRAF+ in 33 of 126 (26.2%) samples, including in five samples for which tumour data were unavailable. Of BRAF+ tumours, 25 of 45 (55.6%) were BRAF+ in cfDNA. In three cases in which the tumour was negative, cfDNA was BRAF+. Progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with BRAF+ tumour and cfDNA was not significantly different compared with tumour BRAF+ but cfDNA BRAF-negative patients, indicating that cfDNA BRAF detection is not associated with poorer prognosis on PFS in stage III/IV advanced melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the feasibility of BRAF mutation detection in cfDNA of patients with advanced melanoma. Future studies should aim to incorporate BRAF mutation testing in cfDNA to further validate this biomarker for patient selection.
    • O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase depletion and DNA damage in patients with melanoma treated with temozolomide alone or with lomeguatrib.

      Watson, Amanda J; Middleton, Mark R; McGown, Gail; Thorncroft, Mary R; Ranson, Malcolm R; Hersey, Peter; McArthur, Grant A; Davis, Ian D; Thomson, D; Beith, Jane; et al. (2009-04-21)
      We evaluated the pharmacodynamic effects of the O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) inactivator lomeguatrib (LM) on patients with melanoma in two clinical trials. Patients received temozolomide (TMZ) for 5 days either alone or with LM for 5, 10 or 14 days. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated before treatment and during cycle 1. Where available, tumour biopsies were obtained after the last drug dose in cycle 1. Samples were assayed for MGMT activity, total MGMT protein, and O(6)-methylguanine (O(6)-meG) and N7-methylguanine levels in DNA. MGMT was completely inactivated in PBMC from patients receiving LM, but detectable in those on TMZ alone. Tumours biopsied on the last day of treatment showed complete inactivation of MGMT but there was recovery of activity in tumours sampled later. Significantly more O(6)-meG was present in the PBMC DNA of LM/TMZ patients than those on TMZ alone. LM/TMZ leads to greater MGMT inactivation, and higher levels of O(6)-meG than TMZ alone. Early recovery of MGMT activity in tumours suggested that more protracted dosing with LM is required. Extended dosing of LM completely inactivated PBMC MGMT, and resulted in persistent levels of O(6)-meG in PBMC DNA during treatment.
    • UGT1A1*28 genotype predicts gastrointestinal toxicity in patients treated with intermediate-dose irinotecan.

      Ferraldeschi, Roberta; Minchell, Laura J; Roberts, Stephen A; Tobi, Simon; Hadfield, Kristen D; Blackhall, Fiona H; Mullamitha, Saifee A; Wilson, Gregory; Valle, Juan W; Saunders, Mark P; et al. (2009-05)
      AIMS: Variants in UGT1A1 have previously been associated with toxicity from irinotecan chemotherapy. We conducted a pragmatic prospective cohort study to establish the relevance of UGT1A1 variants in the prediction of severe diarrhea and neutropenia in patients with colorectal cancer receiving irinotecan in a routine clinical setting. MATERIALS & METHODS: Genotyping of UGT1A1*28 and c.-3156G>A was undertaken in an unselected, prospective cohort of 96 individuals treated with irinotecan at a single major UK oncology centre. Data on cytotoxic drugs received, and toxicity for all irinotecan treatment cycles were collected from case notes. Over 95% (92/96) of patients received an intermediate dose of irinotecan (180 mg/m(2), twice weekly). Irinotecan was given in combination with other cytotoxic drugs in 93/96 subjects and Grade 3 or 4 toxicity occurred in 23% of subjects. RESULTS: No association was found between UGT1A1*28 or c.-3156G>A and neutropenia. However, individuals carrying two copies of UGT1A1*28 (p = 0.04; OR: 14; 95% CI: 1.1-185) or c.-3156G>A (p = 0.03) had a significantly increased risk of diarrhea over all cycles. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that UGT1A1 genotyping is not a good predictor of hematological toxicity in patients treated with intermediate irinotecan doses. However, it may be useful in the identification of patients at risk of severe diarrhea.