› Forums › General Melanoma Community › 50 Gene Panel and NRAS
- This topic has 15 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
Bubbles.
- Post
- Replies
-
-
- January 21, 2015 at 1:24 pm
Hey Ashley,
I would certainly be asking about MEK 162, now called Binimetinib. Here's some of the early info:
In the last post, specifically this: Targeted therapies
Weber: I was very impressed with Sosman's presentation of the CDK-4 inhibitor combined with the MEK inhibitor 162…a 33% response rate, …phase 1 study with only 22 patients….Nonetheless, the NRAS-mutated population – which are BRAF wild-type because the 2 mutations are mutually exclusive – was a relatively hopeless cohort in terms of targeted therapy, and now it looks like there will be a useful and efficacious targeted therapy for at least 15% of melanoma patients who are NRAS-mutated BRAF wild-type.Sosman is at Vanderbilt in Nashville. Several studies wth MEK162 are ongoing. I wish you my best. C
-
- January 21, 2015 at 1:24 pm
Hey Ashley,
I would certainly be asking about MEK 162, now called Binimetinib. Here's some of the early info:
In the last post, specifically this: Targeted therapies
Weber: I was very impressed with Sosman's presentation of the CDK-4 inhibitor combined with the MEK inhibitor 162…a 33% response rate, …phase 1 study with only 22 patients….Nonetheless, the NRAS-mutated population – which are BRAF wild-type because the 2 mutations are mutually exclusive – was a relatively hopeless cohort in terms of targeted therapy, and now it looks like there will be a useful and efficacious targeted therapy for at least 15% of melanoma patients who are NRAS-mutated BRAF wild-type.Sosman is at Vanderbilt in Nashville. Several studies wth MEK162 are ongoing. I wish you my best. C
-
- January 21, 2015 at 1:24 pm
Hey Ashley,
I would certainly be asking about MEK 162, now called Binimetinib. Here's some of the early info:
In the last post, specifically this: Targeted therapies
Weber: I was very impressed with Sosman's presentation of the CDK-4 inhibitor combined with the MEK inhibitor 162…a 33% response rate, …phase 1 study with only 22 patients….Nonetheless, the NRAS-mutated population – which are BRAF wild-type because the 2 mutations are mutually exclusive – was a relatively hopeless cohort in terms of targeted therapy, and now it looks like there will be a useful and efficacious targeted therapy for at least 15% of melanoma patients who are NRAS-mutated BRAF wild-type.Sosman is at Vanderbilt in Nashville. Several studies wth MEK162 are ongoing. I wish you my best. C
-
- January 21, 2015 at 7:21 pm
Ashley, if you don't mind me asking, what was the specific NRAS mutation they found? I'm curious, mine is "G12A". But there are at least a few different ones besides that. The test for me was done back in 2011, so it wasn't the new test you had. I think it was something special that UCSF did at that time, sequencing patient's tumor samples.
You can ask if there are any specific therapies targeting NRAS mutations they are aware of, or lacking that, what therapies he recommends for wild type (likely the immune therapies). There's not very much I know about NRAS other than it's been identified as a oncogene driver for melanoma. There are just a very few trials I remember seeing that are testing drug combinations specifically for patients with NRAS-positive tumors. Here's one, this might be the one Celeste is referring to. Other than that, an article or two about the impact of NRAS mutations on overall prognosis. One said prognosis is a little worse for NRAS patients, possibly because (this is me reading into it) there aren't targeted drugs yet like there are for BRAF positive patients. Another was about NRAS-positive patients doing better on high-dose IL2 than non-NRAS patients. I don't think newer immune therapies were included in that assessment/study, guessing perhaps the data is not there or hasn't been analyzed yet.
Good luck with your upcoming doctor appointment! -Kyle
-
- January 21, 2015 at 7:21 pm
Ashley, if you don't mind me asking, what was the specific NRAS mutation they found? I'm curious, mine is "G12A". But there are at least a few different ones besides that. The test for me was done back in 2011, so it wasn't the new test you had. I think it was something special that UCSF did at that time, sequencing patient's tumor samples.
You can ask if there are any specific therapies targeting NRAS mutations they are aware of, or lacking that, what therapies he recommends for wild type (likely the immune therapies). There's not very much I know about NRAS other than it's been identified as a oncogene driver for melanoma. There are just a very few trials I remember seeing that are testing drug combinations specifically for patients with NRAS-positive tumors. Here's one, this might be the one Celeste is referring to. Other than that, an article or two about the impact of NRAS mutations on overall prognosis. One said prognosis is a little worse for NRAS patients, possibly because (this is me reading into it) there aren't targeted drugs yet like there are for BRAF positive patients. Another was about NRAS-positive patients doing better on high-dose IL2 than non-NRAS patients. I don't think newer immune therapies were included in that assessment/study, guessing perhaps the data is not there or hasn't been analyzed yet.
Good luck with your upcoming doctor appointment! -Kyle
-
- January 21, 2015 at 7:21 pm
Ashley, if you don't mind me asking, what was the specific NRAS mutation they found? I'm curious, mine is "G12A". But there are at least a few different ones besides that. The test for me was done back in 2011, so it wasn't the new test you had. I think it was something special that UCSF did at that time, sequencing patient's tumor samples.
You can ask if there are any specific therapies targeting NRAS mutations they are aware of, or lacking that, what therapies he recommends for wild type (likely the immune therapies). There's not very much I know about NRAS other than it's been identified as a oncogene driver for melanoma. There are just a very few trials I remember seeing that are testing drug combinations specifically for patients with NRAS-positive tumors. Here's one, this might be the one Celeste is referring to. Other than that, an article or two about the impact of NRAS mutations on overall prognosis. One said prognosis is a little worse for NRAS patients, possibly because (this is me reading into it) there aren't targeted drugs yet like there are for BRAF positive patients. Another was about NRAS-positive patients doing better on high-dose IL2 than non-NRAS patients. I don't think newer immune therapies were included in that assessment/study, guessing perhaps the data is not there or hasn't been analyzed yet.
Good luck with your upcoming doctor appointment! -Kyle
-
- January 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm
And…a point you all may already know….BRAF status doesn't seem to make responses any better or worse when it comes to immunotherapy….Nivo/Opdivo, Keytruda, or Ipi/Yervoy or any combination. This is out of ASCO, June 2014:
Survival, response duration, and activity by BRAF mutation status of nivolumab (anti-PD1, BMS-936588) and ipilimumab concurrent therapy in advanced melanoma
Abstract LBA9003Sznol, Kluger, Kirkwood, Wolchok, et al
53 melanoma patients were enrolled from 2009-2012 and were given ipi and nivo concurrently, then followed by nivo alone (with a variety of dosing patterns). Patients with and without BRAF had similar response.
NIVO (mg/kg) +
IPI (mg/kg) [n]1-Y OS rate,
% [pts at risk]Median
OS, moACAR,
%ACAR by BRAF
MT status,* % [n]Pos Neg Unk 0.3 + 3 [14] 56 [7] 14.8 57 50 [4] 67 [3] 57 [7] 1 + 3 [17] 94 [13] NR 65 50 [2] 50 [6] 78 [9] 3 + 1 [16] 89 [3] NR 81 67 [3] 85 [13] – [0] 3 + 3 [6] 100 [5] NR 83 100 [1] 75 [4] 100 [1] Concurrent [53] 82 [28] 39.7 70 60 [10] 73 [26] 71 [17] Sequenced† [32] Insufficient
followup13.0 44 44 [9] 47 [15] 38 [8] So with ipi and nivo, combo or alone, BRAF status doesn't seem to affect response.
If it helps….C
-
- January 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm
And…a point you all may already know….BRAF status doesn't seem to make responses any better or worse when it comes to immunotherapy….Nivo/Opdivo, Keytruda, or Ipi/Yervoy or any combination. This is out of ASCO, June 2014:
Survival, response duration, and activity by BRAF mutation status of nivolumab (anti-PD1, BMS-936588) and ipilimumab concurrent therapy in advanced melanoma
Abstract LBA9003Sznol, Kluger, Kirkwood, Wolchok, et al
53 melanoma patients were enrolled from 2009-2012 and were given ipi and nivo concurrently, then followed by nivo alone (with a variety of dosing patterns). Patients with and without BRAF had similar response.
NIVO (mg/kg) +
IPI (mg/kg) [n]1-Y OS rate,
% [pts at risk]Median
OS, moACAR,
%ACAR by BRAF
MT status,* % [n]Pos Neg Unk 0.3 + 3 [14] 56 [7] 14.8 57 50 [4] 67 [3] 57 [7] 1 + 3 [17] 94 [13] NR 65 50 [2] 50 [6] 78 [9] 3 + 1 [16] 89 [3] NR 81 67 [3] 85 [13] – [0] 3 + 3 [6] 100 [5] NR 83 100 [1] 75 [4] 100 [1] Concurrent [53] 82 [28] 39.7 70 60 [10] 73 [26] 71 [17] Sequenced† [32] Insufficient
followup13.0 44 44 [9] 47 [15] 38 [8] So with ipi and nivo, combo or alone, BRAF status doesn't seem to affect response.
If it helps….C
-
- January 21, 2015 at 7:44 pm
Hmmm….well that chart didn't copy and paste well!!! Here's the link if interested!
5th article in the post. Best, c
-
- January 21, 2015 at 7:44 pm
Hmmm….well that chart didn't copy and paste well!!! Here's the link if interested!
5th article in the post. Best, c
-
- January 21, 2015 at 7:44 pm
Hmmm….well that chart didn't copy and paste well!!! Here's the link if interested!
5th article in the post. Best, c
-
- January 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm
And…a point you all may already know….BRAF status doesn't seem to make responses any better or worse when it comes to immunotherapy….Nivo/Opdivo, Keytruda, or Ipi/Yervoy or any combination. This is out of ASCO, June 2014:
Survival, response duration, and activity by BRAF mutation status of nivolumab (anti-PD1, BMS-936588) and ipilimumab concurrent therapy in advanced melanoma
Abstract LBA9003Sznol, Kluger, Kirkwood, Wolchok, et al
53 melanoma patients were enrolled from 2009-2012 and were given ipi and nivo concurrently, then followed by nivo alone (with a variety of dosing patterns). Patients with and without BRAF had similar response.
NIVO (mg/kg) +
IPI (mg/kg) [n]1-Y OS rate,
% [pts at risk]Median
OS, moACAR,
%ACAR by BRAF
MT status,* % [n]Pos Neg Unk 0.3 + 3 [14] 56 [7] 14.8 57 50 [4] 67 [3] 57 [7] 1 + 3 [17] 94 [13] NR 65 50 [2] 50 [6] 78 [9] 3 + 1 [16] 89 [3] NR 81 67 [3] 85 [13] – [0] 3 + 3 [6] 100 [5] NR 83 100 [1] 75 [4] 100 [1] Concurrent [53] 82 [28] 39.7 70 60 [10] 73 [26] 71 [17] Sequenced† [32] Insufficient
followup13.0 44 44 [9] 47 [15] 38 [8] So with ipi and nivo, combo or alone, BRAF status doesn't seem to affect response.
If it helps….C
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.