
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Letters to the Editor |
Royal Group of Hospitals, Belfast, United Kindom
Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA
Department of Pathology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
Director, Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology and the Ludwig Center for Cancer Research at Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
Department of Pathology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
Department of Haematology and Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Department of Medicine St. Vincent's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Wardelmann et al. (1) describing the evolution of multiple secondary KIT mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) associated with resistance to treatment with imatinib mesylate. We have witnessed a similar emergence of multiple secondary KIT mutations conferring "polyclonal resistance" in a patient with GIST treated with imatinib and subsequently with the newer multi-targeted kinase inhibitor sunitinib malate (Pfizer, La Jolla, CA), which inhibits VEGFR1, VEGFR2, VEGFR3, PDGFR
, and PDGFRß in addition to KIT.
A 51-year-old female with a duodenal GIST metastatic to the liver was treated with 400 mg of imatinib orally once daily. After a partial response lasting 14 months, she developed progressive disease while continuing imatinib and underwent debulking surgery. She was then enrolled on a trial evaluating sunitinib in imatinib-resistant GISTs. Follow-up with serial computed tomography measured five intra-abdominal tumors that were all defined as measurable index lesions using conventional methodology (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). There was a transient period of disease stability, which lasted 2 months, before progression of the largest index lesions and ensuing death. An autopsy with consent revealed extensive tumor throughout the peritoneal cavity in addition to terminal pulmonary embolism. Sequencing of KIT exons 9, 11, 13, and 17 was done on tumor samples from three different stages of disease, including a total of eight samples from the five index lesions sampled at autopsy (Fig. 1 ).
|
The most common cause of imatinib resistance in GIST is the acquisition of secondary KIT mutations involving kinase domain I or II (exon 13, 14, or 17; refs. 13). This case shows with radiological, autopsy, and molecular correlation the emergence of multiple progressive GIST tumor clones from within a background of controlled disease, caused by the acquisition of secondary KIT kinase domain mutations. Such "polyclonal resistance" to imatinib has been previously described by Shah et al. in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (4). In our case, sunitinib therapy initiated after the onset of imatinib resistance produced only limited benefit. The transient clinical response to sunitinib and the relative infrequency of the secondary D816H mutation within autopsy samples suggests that the D816H mutation may retain some sensitivity to inhibition by sunitinib, but the emergence of the sunitinib-resistant V654A mutation was associated with further disease progression and ultimately death.
The complexity of KIT mutational profiles in imatinib-resistant GIST makes it unlikely any single next-generation kinase inhibitor will effectively inhibit all mutant clones. However, the limited number of different mutations that are associated with imatinib resistance suggests that the use of multiple conformationally distinct kinase inhibitors will likely be better than any single agent. Using monotherapy, a single genetic event conferring resistance on an individual tumor cell can lead to clinical progression and indeed can be looked on as an inevitable consequence of a selection process under pressure of individual drugs, similar to the rationale for combination antibacterial or antiretroviral therapies. A better outcome will likely be achieved using combinations of targeted agents initially, in a manner analogous to that employed in treating HIV infection, to prevent rather than wait for treatment following the emergence of drug resistance (5, 6).
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |