4.7 Article

A Secondary Mutation in BRAF Confers Resistance to RAF Inhibition in a BRAFV600E-Mutant Brain Tumor

期刊

CANCER DISCOVERY
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 1130-1141

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-1263

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Novartis [NCT01677741]
  2. NIH [K08 CA127350, P30 CA008748, U54 OD020355, R01 CA204749]
  3. Giant Food Pediatric Cancer Fund
  4. Sontag Foundation
  5. Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology of MSKCC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BRAF(V600E) hyperactivates ERK and signals as a RAF inhibitor-sensitive monomer. Although RAF inhibitors can produce impressive clinical responses in patients with mutant BRAF tumors, the mechanisms of resistance to these drugs are incompletely characterized. Here, we report a complete response followed by clinical progression in a patient with a BRAF(V600E)-mutant brain tumor treated with dabrafenib. Whole-exome sequencing revealed a secondary BRAF(L514V) mutation at progression that was not present in the pretreatment tumor. Expressing BRAF(V600E/L514V) induces ERK signaling, promotes RAF dimer formation, and is sufficient to confer resistance to dabrafenib. Newer RAF dimer inhibitors and an ERK inhibitor are effective against BRAF(L514V)-mediated resistance. Collectively, our results validate a novel biochemical mechanism of RAF inhibitor resistance mediated by a secondary mutation, emphasizing that, like driver mutations in cancer, the spectrum of mutations that drive resistance to targeted therapy are heterogeneous and perhaps emerge with a lineage-specific prevalence. SIGNIFICANCE: In contrast to receptor tyrosine kinases, in which secondary mutations are often responsible for acquired resistance, second-site mutations in BRAF have not been validated in clinically acquired resistance to RAF inhibitors. We demonstrate a secondary mutation in BRAF (V600E/L514V) following progression on dabrafenib and confirm functionally that this mutation is responsible for resistance. (C) 2018 AACR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据