Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Cancer Therapy: Clinical

Phase II Study of the Oral MEK Inhibitor Selumetinib in Advanced Acute Myelogenous Leukemia: A University of Chicago Phase II Consortium Trial

Nitin Jain, Emily Curran, Neil M. Iyengar, Ernesto Diaz-Flores, Rangesh Kunnavakkam, Leslie Popplewell, Mark H. Kirschbaum, Theodore Karrison, Harry P. Erba, Margaret Green, Xavier Poire, Greg Koval, Kevin Shannon, Poluru L. Reddy, Loren Joseph, Ehab L. Atallah, Philip Dy, Sachdev P. Thomas, Scott E. Smith, L. Austin Doyle, Walter M. Stadler, Richard A. Larson, Wendy Stock and Olatoyosi Odenike
Nitin Jain
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily Curran
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neil M. Iyengar
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ernesto Diaz-Flores
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rangesh Kunnavakkam
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leslie Popplewell
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark H. Kirschbaum
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theodore Karrison
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harry P. Erba
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Margaret Green
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xavier Poire
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Greg Koval
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin Shannon
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Poluru L. Reddy
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Loren Joseph
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ehab L. Atallah
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip Dy
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sachdev P. Thomas
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott E. Smith
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. Austin Doyle
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Walter M. Stadler
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard A. Larson
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wendy Stock
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olatoyosi Odenike
1The University of Chicago; 2Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; 3Illinois Cancer Care, Peoria; 4Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; 5University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco; 6City of Hope, Duarte, California; 7University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 8Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and 9National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1311 Published January 2014
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: The clinical relevance of targeting the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway, activated in 70% to 80% of patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), is unknown.

Experimental Design: Selumetinib is an oral small-molecule inhibitor of MAP–ERK kinase (MEK)-1/2. Forty-seven patients with relapsed/refractory AML or 60 years old or more with untreated AML were enrolled on a phase II study. Patients were stratified by FLT3 ITD mutation status. The primary endpoint was response rate (complete, partial, and minor). Leukemia cells were analyzed for extracellular signal—regulated kinase (ERK) and mTOR phosphorylation.

Results: Common drug-related toxicities were grade 1–2 diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and skin rash. In the FLT3 wild-type cohort, six of 36 (17%) patients had a response [one partial response, three minor responses, two unconfirmed minor responses (uMR)]. No patient with FLT3 ITD responded. NRAS and KRAS mutations were detected in 7% and 2% of patients, respectively. The sole patient with KRAS mutation had uMR with hematologic improvement in platelets. Baseline p-ERK activation was observed in 85% of patients analyzed but did not correlate with a response. A single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs3733542 in exon 18 of the KIT gene was detected in significantly higher number of patients with response/stable disease compared with nonresponders (60% vs. 23%; P = 0.027).

Conclusions: Selumetinib is associated with modest single-agent antileukemic activity in advanced AML. However, given its favorable toxicity profile, combination with drugs that target other signaling pathways in AML should be considered. The potential association of SNP rs3733542 in exon 18 of the KIT gene with antileukemic activity of selumetinib is intriguing, but will require validation in larger trials. Clin Cancer Res; 20(2); 490–8. ©2013 AACR.

Translational Relevance

The RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway is activated in majority of patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Selumetinib is an oral small-molecule inhibitor of MAP–ERK kinase (MEK)-1/2 kinase, and this study was based on the hypothesis that MEK kinase inhibition in AML would result in antiproliferative effects and inhibition of the leukemia clone. This is the first study to document, in vivo, the potential clinical relevance of targeting this pathway in relapsed/refractory AML. We demonstrate that administration of selumetinib is safe and is associated with modest antileukemic activity. Baseline p-ERK activation seen in 85% of patients analyzed did not correlate with response. A potential association of single-nucleotide polymorphism rs3733542 in exon 18 of the KIT gene with antileukemic activity of selumetinib was observed, and deserves validation in larger trials. Given the cross-talk between dysregulated signal transduction pathways in AML, combination studies with MEK inhibitors and other agents that target relevant signaling pathways in AML are warranted.

Introduction

The outcome for relapsed/refractory acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) is poor, and effective treatment options are limited (1). The explosion of information on the molecular pathogenesis of AML has afforded new opportunities for the development of novel molecularly targeted agents (2).

The RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway plays a central role in the regulation of many cellular processes and in growth factor receptors signaling (3). Therefore, it is not unexpected that it is one of the most dysregulated pathways in human cancers (3–7). In AML, the RAS pathway is activated by mutations in upstream receptor tyrosine kinases such as FLT3 and c-KIT or mutations or overexpression of components of downstream effector pathways. In a recent report, the mutation frequency for FLT3, NRAS, and KRAS genes in AML were 37%, 10%, and 2%, respectively (8). In addition, constitutive activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)-1/2 is seen in 70% to 80% of AML cell lines and primary AML samples, and MAP–ERK kinase (MEK) inhibition in vitro has resulted in growth arrest of primary AML cells (9, 10).

Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) is a potent, selective, orally bioavailable, and non-ATP competitive small-molecule inhibitor of MEK1/2 (11, 12). Selumetinib inhibits ERK1 and ERK2 phosphorylation in a variety of cancer cell lines and in xenograft models (11, 13). Selumetinib is particularly potent in inhibiting viability of cell lines with BRAF or KRAS mutation (13). In a prior phase I study, doses ranging from 50 mg orally twice daily to 300 mg orally twice daily were explored in a variety of advanced solid tumors (12). Skin rash was the most frequent toxicity and dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and the dose of 100 mg twice daily was selected as the recommended phase II dose. We hypothesized that the use of selumetinib in patients with AML would lead to inhibition of RAS-mediated signal transduction with subsequent antileukemic effect. We also hypothesized that such an effect would be most pronounced in patients who have evidence of constitutive activation of the pathway at baseline through a mutation in the RAS, FLT3, or KIT genes.

We report here the results of a phase II multicenter study of single-agent selumetinib in patients with advanced AML. The primary objective of the study was to determine the response rate to selumetinib. Secondary objectives of this study were to determine the relationship between baseline p-ERK activation and clinical outcome, and to correlate the outcomes with the presence of mutated RAS, FLT3, or KIT.

Materials and Methods

Patients and eligibility criteria

Patients were eligible for the study if they had histologically confirmed relapsed or refractory AML, secondary AML, including therapy-related AML or AML arising from an antecedent hematologic disorder, or newly diagnosed AML if 60 years of age or older and not a candidate, or who had refused standard chemotherapy for AML. Other inclusion criteria included age 18 years or more, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, relatively normal organ function at baseline, and ability to give informed consent.

There was no limitation on the number of prior chemotherapy regimens received, including prior autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Hydroxyurea was permitted for the first 7 days. The protocol was reviewed and approved at each institution's Institutional Review Board, and all subjects enrolled gave written informed consent.

Treatment and response evaluation

The study was a National Cancer Institute (NCI; Rockville, MD)/Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP)–sponsored open label, multicenter phase II trial conducted through the University of Chicago Phase II Consortium (Chicago, IL). Selumetinib was provided by NCI/CTEP in collaboration with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

On the basis of the results of a prior phase I study, (12) selumetinib was administered orally (freebase formulation) at 100 mg twice daily for a 28-day cycle, without interruption. Baseline evaluation included bone marrow aspiration and biopsy for morphology, immunophenotyping, cytogenetics, and molecular analyses.

To assess response to therapy, a complete blood count was performed weekly for the first 8 weeks, then every other week for subsequent cycles. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy were performed after one, two, and four cycles of therapy and thereafter as clinically indicated. Responses [complete remission (CR) with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi), and partial remission (PR)] were defined using standard criteria developed by an International Working Group (14, 15). In addition, given the anticipated cytostatic nature of this agent (10), the following additional criteria were proposed to capture any evidence of antileukemic activity in this early-phase trial: minor response (MR) was defined as 50% decrease or more in blasts in peripheral blood and/or bone marrow (similar to a prior definition used to describe antileukemic activity observed in other early-phase trials with kinase inhibitors in AML; refs. 16, 17), maintained for 4 weeks or more. Unconfirmed minor response (uMR) was defined as 50% decline or more in marrow blasts without a follow-up confirmatory marrow evaluation. Hematologic improvement, stable disease, and disease progression criteria were adapted from and applied as previously defined for myelodysplastic syndrome (18). Treatment could continue indefinitely in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. Toxicities were graded according to the NCI-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0.

Correlative studies

Bone marrow aspirate and peripheral blood samples were collected at baseline for the correlative studies outlined below.

Mutational analysis of FLT3, NRAS, KRAS, and KIT genes

FLT3 mutation analysis.

Evaluation for the presence of FLT3 ITD and activation loop mutations (Asp835) was performed by the institutional molecular diagnostic laboratories. This analysis was performed in real time, and the results were utilized to stratify patients at the time of enrollment into the FLT3 wild-type or FLT3-mutant cohort.

NRAS and KRAS mutation analysis.

Genomic DNA was extracted from cryopreserved bone marrow or peripheral blood mononuclear cells using the Gentra Puregene Kit (Qiagen Inc). NRAS mutation analysis at codons 12, 13, and 61 was performed using the hybridization probes method described by Nakao and colleagues (19), and the results were confirmed by direct sequencing. Samples were analyzed for KRAS mutations at codons 12, 13, and 61 by direct sequencing. The primer sequences and PCR conditions were the same as those used by Liang and colleagues (20).

KIT mutation analysis.

DNA was prepared from whole blood or marrow aspirate using the QIA amp DNA Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen). DNA purity and concentration were determined by UV spectrophotometry. Using 50 ng DNA per reaction, KIT exons 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 18 were each separately amplified by PCR with intronic primers (Supplementary Table S1). The amplicons were sequenced using the BigDye Terminator v1.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems) and run on an ABI_3100 capillary electrophoresis analyzer. DNA sequences were analyzed with both SeqScape v2.1.1 (Applied Biosystems) and Mutation Surveyor (Softgenetics), using NM_000222 as the reference sequence.

Phospho-flow analysis

p-ERK1/2 and p-mTOR analysis.

For flow cytometry, cells were collected and cryopreserved immediately at the sites (University of Chicago and City of Hope) with that capability before shipment. For sites that did not have that capability, samples were shipped overnight and immediately cryopreserved on arrival. Cryopreserved samples were batched for phospho-flow analysis and were thawed, permeabilized, and fixed before shipment for that analysis. Whenever possible, samples were also collected at 4 hours postdose and at 4 weeks after initiation of therapy. The phospho-flow assay has been described and validated elsewhere (21, 22). Briefly, primary antibodies (p-ERK #9101 from Cell Signaling Technology and p-mTOR #44-1125G from Invitrogen) were added at optimized concentration in fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) buffer and incubated at room temperature for 1 hour. Samples were washed once with FACS buffer. Secondary and directly conjugated surface marker antibodies were added at optimized concentrations and incubated in the dark at room temperature for 30 minutes. Samples were washed once with PBS and analyzed on a Becton Dickinson LSR II. Data were collected using DIVA software (Becton Dickinson) and analyzed using FLOWJO (Tree Star) and Cytobank. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells obtained from healthy donors were used as normal controls. Activation of the pathway was defined as mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) ratio of patient sample versus control more than 1.

Statistical design and analysis

The primary analysis was to be based on cohort A, consisting of patients without a FLT3 mutation. In this cohort, a Simon two-stage design was used. Enrollment to this cohort was to be stopped for lack of efficacy if no responses (CR, CRi, PR, or MR) were observed in the first 12 evaluable patients. Otherwise, an additional 23 patients would be enrolled for a total of 35 patients and, if six or more responses were observed, the treatment would be considered sufficiently active to warrant further study. This sample size was calculated to yield a 0.90 probability of a positive result if the true response rate is more than or equal to 30%. This yields a 0.90 probability of a negative result if the true response rate is 10% (null hypothesis) with 0.65 probability of early negative stopping.

A second smaller cohort (cohort B, maximum number = 10) with FLT3 ITD mutations was also enrolled and their responses analyzed separately. Wilcoxon nonparametric rank test was utilized to assess serial changes in p-ERK and p-mTOR levels. In the course of the analysis for KIT mutations, a previously described single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs3733542, with a known population frequency of 20%, was identified in exon 18 of the KIT gene in several patients. χ2 test was utilized to assess the difference in the incidence of this SNP between the responders and stable disease patients versus the nonresponders.

Results

Patient characteristics

Forty-seven patients were enrolled between January 2008 and June 2009, including 36 patients in cohort A and 10 patients in cohort B. One patient had unknown FLT3 ITD status. Accrual exceeded 35 patients in cohort A due to the 36th patient on cohort A having signed consent before the notification of study closure. Pretreatment patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Median age was 69 years (range, 26–83). Fifty-one percent of patients had AML arising from myelodysplastic syndrome or myeloproliferative neoplasm, or had therapy-related AML. Fifty-two percent of patients had poor risk cytogenetics (23).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Patient demographics and baseline characteristics

Treatment toxicity

Selumetinib was relatively well tolerated. The most common drug-related toxicities included diarrhea (45%), fatigue (43%), nausea (36%), vomiting (24%), and skin rash (21%) (Fig. 1). Most toxicities were mild (grade 1–2). Grade 3 toxicities included nausea (6%), diarrhea (4%), anorexia (4%), fatigue (2%), vomiting (2%), rash (2%), and dry mouth (2%). One patient experienced grade 4 toxicity (fatigue).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Common (>10%) nonhematologic treatment toxicities.

Drug delivery

A total of 107 treatment cycles were delivered. The median number of cycles administered was 1 (range, 1–21). The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression or lack of benefit. Two patients discontinued therapy due to adverse events, in one of these patients, this was due to grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) occurring in the second cycle of therapy, and the other patient discontinued therapy after one cycle due to an infection occurring in the setting of neutropenia (patient was also neutropenic at baseline).

Treatment outcome

In cohort A (FLT3 wild-type), six out of 36 patients (17%) had a response (1 PR, 3 MR, 2 uMR) that lasted a median of 58 days (range, 33–273 days; Table 2). Among the first 35 patients enrolled in cohort A, there were five responders; therefore, the trial did not reach the prespecified criteria for a positive result. Four additional patients in this cohort had stable disease, with no evidence of disease progression for more than 8 weeks (median 16 weeks, range 9–85 weeks). The patient with a partial response was a 53-year-old woman with AML who had received multiple prior therapies for AML, including matched-unrelated donor stem cell transplantation. After treatment initiation, her bone marrow blast percentage decreased from 44% at baseline to 10% at 1 month and 9% at 4 months. Absolute neutrophil count increased from 700/μL at baseline to more than 1,000/μL on day 7 and hemoglobin improved from 8.3 g/dL at baseline to more than 10 g/dL on day 49 (without transfusions). Overall, the response lasted 6.7 months. The patient received eight cycles of treatment and was taken off protocol due to disease progression. No patient with FLT3 ITD (n = 10) responded. One patient had unknown FLT3 status and did not respond.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Characteristics of the treatment responders and patients with stable disease

FLT3, NRAS, KRAS, and KIT analysis

To determine whether mutations in RAS or upstream receptor tyrosine kinases are associated with clinical activity of selumetinib, baseline bone marrow and/or peripheral blood samples were analyzed for mutations in FLT3, NRAS, KRAS, and KIT. The results for FLT3 mutations are described above.

Of the 41 patients with samples available for analysis, NRAS mutation was detected in three (7%) patients and KRAS mutation in one (2%). One patient with a NRAS mutation had a concomitant FLT3 ITD detected. None of the three patients with NRAS mutation had a response. The sole patient with a KRAS mutation had an uMR with hematologic improvement in platelets. The patient was a 75-year-old man with AML (FLT3 wild-type and monosomy 5 chromosomal abnormality) arising from prior myelodysplastic syndrome. His baseline bone marrow blast percentage was 25% and the percentage of blasts remained relatively unchanged after cycles 1 and 2, but had declined to 7% by cycle 4. No follow-up bone marrow was done thereafter. The platelet count increased from 75,000/μL at baseline to 156,000/μL at 1 month to 208,000/μL at 4 months. He received a total of six cycles of treatment and was taken off protocol due to a protocol violation (use of amiodarone, which was prohibited in this study).

KIT mutation analysis revealed the presence of a SNP rs3733542 (known population frequency of 20%), in exon 18 of the KIT gene in six of ten (60%) patients assessed as having a response or disease stabilization to selumetinib. In contrast, this SNP was detected in only seven of 31 (23%) patients without a response or disease stabilization (P = 0.027).

Phospho-flow analysis

Baseline samples were available for p-ERK analysis in 20 patients (cohort A, n = 16; cohort B, n = 4). The raw phospho-flow data are provided as Supplementary Files. Analysis of p-ERK showed baseline activation in 17 of 20 (85%) patients, but no statistically significant difference in baseline levels in the responders (n = 6) versus nonresponders (n = 14; P = 0.15; Fig. 2). In addition, there was no significant difference in the baseline p-mTOR levels between responders and nonresponders (P = 0.30; Fig. 2).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Box plot of baseline p-ERK and p-mTOR in responding (n = 6) and nonresponding (n = 14) patients. Values expressed as ratio of MFI of patient sample to normal controls. There was no significant difference in baseline levels between responders and nonresponders.

Only four patients had serial samples (baseline, at 4 hours and at 4 weeks) available for analysis. All four had baseline p-ERK activation, and in two of these patients (#3 and #5), there was evidence of inhibition of p-ERK at the 4-week time point (Supplementary Fig. S1). Only one of these patients (#5) had any evidence of a response.

Discussion

This phase II study of single-agent selumetinib in advanced AML demonstrates that administration of this MEK inhibitor in this patient population is feasible and is associated with modest antileukemic activity. Although dysregulation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway has been shown to be important in leukemogenesis, and pharmacologic inhibition of MEK has also been shown to inhibit the growth of leukemic cell lines and primary AML samples in vitro (10, 24, 25), this is the first study to attempt to document, in vivo, the potential clinical relevance of targeting this pathway in relapsed/refractory AML.

In AML, this pathway is activated both by mutations occurring in RAS, as well mutations and/or overexpression of upstream receptor tyrosine kinases such as FLT3 (8, 10). Given the fact that FLT3 mutations occur in approximately one-third of patients with AML, we implemented a study design that included a cohort of ten patients with FLT3 mutations, in an attempt to enrich for this subset. Contrary to our underlying hypothesis however, there were no responders in this cohort. These results differ from in vitro data, where inhibition of MEK induced apoptosis in cells expressing mutant FLT3 ITD (26–28).

Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, which required demonstrating six responses (CR, CRi, PR or MR) in the first 35 patients enrolled, we did observe a modest antileukemic effect in 10 of 36 patients in the FLT3 wild-type cohort (Table 2). It has been postulated that higher baseline level of p-ERK predicts sensitivity to MEK inhibition in AML cell lines and primary AML samples (25). Therefore, we analyzed p-ERK at baseline, and confirmed p-ERK activation in the majority of patients (85%) evaluated at baseline, but there was no correlation with treatment outcome. Larger studies are needed to confirm this finding, although our experience is similar to that of Bekaii-Saab and colleagues, who also reported no correlation between p-ERK activation and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic biliary cancer treated with selumetinib (29). In the biliary cancer study, 28 patients with advanced stage disease were treated with single-agent selumetinib 100 mg twice daily. Overall 12% of patients had an objective response with an additional 68% patients with stable disease. The activation of p-ERK, assessed by immunohistochemistry on biopsy specimens, did not correlate with progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), though the investigators were able to show that total lack of p-ERK was associated with an inferior OS. In another study with single-agent selumetinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular cancer (n = 17), although the investigators were able to demonstrate inhibition of p-ERK on serial tumor biopsies by Western blot analysis, they could not demonstrate a correlation with response (30).

Because KIT is also upstream of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway, and KIT mutations have been described in AML, we evaluated for evidence of KIT mutations (n = 41). None of these patients had activating mutations in KIT. A polymorphism in exon 18 of KIT (SNP rs3733542) was detected in 13 of 41 patients (32%). This synonymous SNP has a known frequency of approximately 20% in the general population. Interestingly however, this SNP was detected in 60% of patients with a response or disease stabilization. In contrast, only 23% of patients without any evidence of an antileukemic effect harbored this SNP. This SNP in exon 18 is located within a crucial region of the miR-146a and miR-146b domain of the KIT gene (KIT is a known target of these miRs). In papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), the presence of this SNP has been associated with low levels of KIT (31). Low levels of KIT expression as demonstrated in association with the presence of this SNP in the PTC experience would not in general be predicted to lead to significant activation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway. It is possible however, that low levels of KIT may be associated with low levels of the putative target MEK, which may in turn confer enhanced susceptibility to inhibition of the pathway, but this is purely speculative at this point. The biologic significance of this finding remains unclear at this time, and requires validation because it is plausible that this finding could be an artifact of the relatively small sample size.

Selumetinib has also been evaluated as single agent in many solid tumors, including biliary cancers (29), melanoma (32), hepatocellular cancer (30), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; ref. 33), PTC (34), and colorectal cancer (35) with modest objective response rates. Mutations in components of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway such as BRAF or KRAS have been shown to increase sensitivity to MEK inhibition. This has been demonstrated in many solid tumor cell lines (36, 37). Early clinical data also support this observation with presence of the BRAF mutation in patients with melanoma and KRAS mutation in patients with NSCLC (32, 38–40). Improved PFS has also been observed in patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation who received treatment with selumetinib plus docetaxel compared with docetaxel alone (40). Addition of selumetinib to dacarbazine has also been shown to improve PFS in patients with previously untreated BRAF-mutant melanoma (41). In our study, 41 patients, including all the responding patients were evaluated for NRAS and KRAS mutations, and four (approximately 10%) had mutated NRAS (n = 3) or KRAS (n = 1). This is in keeping with the known mutational frequency of the RAS oncogene in AML (8). Interestingly, the sole patient with KRAS mutation in our study had a minor response. Although this finding raises the possibility that the presence of RAS mutations may confer sensitivity to this class of agents, the numbers of RAS-mutant patients in this study are too small to draw any definitive conclusions. Preliminary results in a RAS-mutated cohort enrolled on a separate, ongoing clinical trial with another MEK inhibitor in patients with relapsed/refractory AML, however, lend some credence to this hypothesis (42).

In summary, administration of selumetinib is feasible in AML, but is associated with limited antileukemic activity as a single agent in this patient population with several poor risk characteristics. One of the weaknesses of the present study is that we had very limited number of paired pre- and postselumetinib samples (Supplementary Fig. S1) and given the small sample size, the analysis was not informative. Thus, we are unable to report on the extent of pathway inhibition. A new formulation of selumetinib with hydrogen sulfate salt that gives twice the exposure of the freebase drug tested in the present study has recently been developed, and it is plausible that the newer formulation may be associated with higher efficacy (43).

Given the modest single-agent activity of selumetinib in general, combinations evaluating selumetinib plus existing chemotherapy agents or other novel agents are already underway in a number of tumor types and the early results have been encouraging (40, 41). Recent evidence suggests that resistance to MEK inhibition may be related to over compensatory upstream hyperactivation of RAS/RAF or activation of the parallel PI3K/PTEN/AKT/mTOR pathway (25, 44–47). Mutations in genes not directly involved in cytokine signaling as well as copy number variation of genes in signaling pathways may also mediate resistance to MEK inhibition (48). Our group and others have shown in vitro, synergistic induction of apoptosis when MEK inhibitors are combined with inhibitors of the PI3K/AKT pathway (49). On the basis of emerging experience with MEK inhibitors in RAS-mutated AML, it is reasonable to hypothesize that this subset of patients may be most sensitive to such combination approaches. Given the favorable toxicity profile of selumetinib based on our experience and that of others (29, 30), combination therapy with inhibitors of the PI3K/AKT pathway should be considered, especially for RAS-mutated AML (50).

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

H.P. Erba has a commercial research grant from Celator and Millennium, has honoria from speakers' bureau from Celgene, Novartis, and Incyte, and is a consultant/advisory board member of Novartis. W. Stock is a consultant/advisory board member of Amgen and Sunesis. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: M.H. Kirschbaum, T. Karrison, A. Doyle, W. Stock, O. Odenike

Development of methodology: N.M. Iyengar, E. Diaz-Flores, M.H. Kirschbaum, A. Doyle, O. Odenike

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): N. Jain, N.M. Iyengar, L. Popplewell, M.H. Kirschbaum, H.P. Erba, M. Green, X. Poire, G. Koval, K. Shannon, P.L. Reddy, L. Joseph, E.L Atallah, S.P. Thomas, S.E. Smith, R.A. Larson, W. Stock, O. Odenike

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): N. Jain, N.M. Iyengar, E. Diaz-Flores, R. Kunnavakkam, M.H. Kirschbaum, H.P. Erba, K. Shannon, W. Stock, O. Odenike

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: N. Jain, E. Curran, N.M. Iyengar, E. Diaz-Flores, L. Popplewell, M.H. Kirschbaum, T. Karrison, H.P. Erba, G. Koval, P.L. Reddy, E.L Atallah, S.E. Smith, A. Doyle, W.M. Stadler, R.A. Larson, W. Stock, O. Odenike

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): N. Jain, E. Curran, N.M. Iyengar, G. Koval, P.L. Reddy, S.P. Thomas, W.M. Stadler, O. Odenike

Study supervision: S.P. Thomas, P. Dy, A. Doyle, O. Odenike

Grant Support

This work was supported by the NCI Cancer Therapy and Evaluation Program contract N01-CM-62201, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, NCI Translational Research Funds, and Specialized Center of Research grant (#7015-09) of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received May 12, 2013.
  • Revision received September 25, 2013.
  • Accepted October 20, 2013.
  • ©2013 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Burnett A,
    2. Wetzler M,
    3. Lowenberg B
    . Therapeutic advances in acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:487–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Odenike O,
    2. Thirman MJ,
    3. Artz AS,
    4. Godley LA,
    5. Larson RA,
    6. Stock W
    . Gene mutations, epigenetic dysregulation, and personalized therapy in myeloid neoplasia: are we there yet? Semin Oncol 2011;38:196–214.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Wellbrock C,
    2. Karasarides M,
    3. Marais R
    . The RAF proteins take centre stage. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2004;5:875–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hoshino R,
    2. Chatani Y,
    3. Yamori T,
    4. Tsuruo T,
    5. Oka H,
    6. Yoshida O,
    7. et al.
    Constitutive activation of the 41-/43-kDa mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway in human tumors. Oncogene 1999;18:813–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Davies H,
    2. Bignell GR,
    3. Cox C,
    4. Stephens P,
    5. Edkins S,
    6. Clegg S,
    7. et al.
    Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 2002;417:949–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Sebolt-Leopold JS,
    2. Herrera R
    . Targeting the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade to treat cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:937–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Steelman LS,
    2. Franklin RA,
    3. Abrams SL,
    4. Chappell W,
    5. Kempf CR,
    6. Basecke J,
    7. et al.
    Roles of the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK pathway in leukemia therapy. Leukemia 2011;25:1080–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Patel JP,
    2. Gonen M,
    3. Figueroa ME,
    4. Fernandez H,
    5. Sun Z,
    6. Racevskis J,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic relevance of integrated genetic profiling in acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1079–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Milella M,
    2. Kornblau SM,
    3. Estrov Z,
    4. Carter BZ,
    5. Lapillonne H,
    6. Harris D,
    7. et al.
    Therpeutic targeting of the MEK/MAPK signal transduction module in acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Invest 2001;108:851–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Ricciardi MR,
    2. McQueen T,
    3. Chism D,
    4. Milella M,
    5. Estey E,
    6. Kaldjian E,
    7. et al.
    Quantitative single cell determination of ERK phosphorylation and regulation in relapsed and refractory primary acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 2005;19:1543–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Yeh TC,
    2. Marsh V,
    3. Bernat BA,
    4. Ballard J,
    5. Colwell H,
    6. Evans RJ,
    7. et al.
    Biological characterization of ARRY-142886 (AZD6244), a potent, highly selective mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 inhibitor. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:1576–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Adjei AA,
    2. Cohen RB,
    3. Franklin W,
    4. Morris C,
    5. Wilson D,
    6. Molina JR,
    7. et al.
    Phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral, small-molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with advanced cancers. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2139–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Davies BR,
    2. Logie A,
    3. McKay JS,
    4. Martin P,
    5. Steele S,
    6. Jenkins R,
    7. et al.
    AZD6244 (ARRY-142886), a potent inhibitor of mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase 1/2 kinases: mechanism of action in vivo, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship, and potential for combination in preclinical models. Mol Cancer Ther 2007;6:2209–19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Cheson BD,
    2. Bennett JM,
    3. Kopecky KJ,
    4. Buchner T,
    5. Willman CL,
    6. Estey EH,
    7. et al.
    Revised recommendations of the International Working Group for Diagnosis, Standardization of Response Criteria, Treatment Outcomes, and Reporting Standards for Therapeutic Trials in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4642–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Dohner H,
    2. Estey EH,
    3. Amadori S,
    4. Appelbaum FR,
    5. Buchner T,
    6. Burnett AK,
    7. et al.
    Diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia in adults: recommendations from an international expert panel, on behalf of the European LeukemiaNet. Blood 2010;115:453–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Fischer T,
    2. Stone RM,
    3. Deangelo DJ,
    4. Galinsky I,
    5. Estey E,
    6. Lanza C,
    7. et al.
    Phase IIB trial of oral Midostaurin (PKC412), the FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 receptor (FLT3) and multi-targeted kinase inhibitor, in patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome with either wild-type or mutated FLT3. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4339–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Stone RM,
    2. DeAngelo DJ,
    3. Klimek V,
    4. Galinsky I,
    5. Estey E,
    6. Nimer SD,
    7. et al.
    Patients with acute myeloid leukemia and an activating mutation in FLT3 respond to a small-molecule FLT3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, PKC412. Blood 2005;105:54–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Cheson BD,
    2. Greenberg PL,
    3. Bennett JM,
    4. Lowenberg B,
    5. Wijermans PW,
    6. Nimer SD,
    7. et al.
    Clinical application and proposal for modification of the International Working Group (IWG) response criteria in myelodysplasia. Blood 2006;108:419–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Nakao M,
    2. Janssen JW,
    3. Seriu T,
    4. Bartram CR
    . Rapid and reliable detection of N-ras mutations in acute lymphoblastic leukemia by melting curve analysis using LightCycler technology. Leukemia 2000;14:312–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Liang DC,
    2. Shih LY,
    3. Fu JF,
    4. Li HY,
    5. Wang HI,
    6. Hung IJ,
    7. et al.
    K-Ras mutations and N-Ras mutations in childhood acute leukemias with or without mixed-lineage leukemia gene rearrangements. Cancer 2006;106:950–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Van Meter ME,
    2. Diaz-Flores E,
    3. Archard JA,
    4. Passegue E,
    5. Irish JM,
    6. Kotecha N,
    7. et al.
    K-RasG12D expression induces hyperproliferation and aberrant signaling in primary hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells. Blood 2007;109:3945–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Lauchle JO,
    2. Kim D,
    3. Le DT,
    4. Akagi K,
    5. Crone M,
    6. Krisman K,
    7. et al.
    Response and resistance to MEK inhibition in leukaemias initiated by hyperactive Ras. Nature 2009;461:411–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Byrd JC,
    2. Mrozek K,
    3. Dodge RK,
    4. Carroll AJ,
    5. Edwards CG,
    6. Arthur DC,
    7. et al.
    Pretreatment cytogenetic abnormalities are predictive of induction success, cumulative incidence of relapse, and overall survival in adult patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 8461). Blood 2002;100:4325–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Morgan MA,
    2. Dolp O,
    3. Reuter CW
    . Cell-cycle-dependent activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK-1/2) in myeloid leukemia cell lines and induction of growth inhibition and apoptosis by inhibitors of RAS signaling. Blood 2001;97:1823–34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Ricciardi MR,
    2. Scerpa MC,
    3. Bergamo P,
    4. Ciuffreda L,
    5. Petrucci MT,
    6. Chiaretti S,
    7. et al.
    Therapeutic potential of MEK inhibition in acute myelogenous leukemia: rationale for “vertical” and “lateral” combination strategies. J Mol Med 2012;90:1133–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Takahashi S
    . Inhibition of the MEK/MAPK signal transduction pathway strongly impairs the growth of Flt3-ITD cells. Am J Hematol 2006;81:154–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Nishioka C,
    2. Ikezoe T,
    3. Yang J,
    4. Takeshita A,
    5. Taniguchi A,
    6. Komatsu N,
    7. et al.
    Blockade of MEK/ERK signaling enhances sunitinib-induced growth inhibition and apoptosis of leukemia cells possessing activating mutations of the FLT3 gene. Leuk Res 2008;32:865–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Razumovskaya E,
    2. Sun J,
    3. Ronnstrand L
    . Inhibition of MEK5 by BIX02188 induces apoptosis in cells expressing the oncogenic mutant FLT3-ITD. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2011;412:307–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Bekaii-Saab T,
    2. Phelps MA,
    3. Li X,
    4. Saji M,
    5. Goff L,
    6. Kauh JS,
    7. et al.
    Multi-institutional phase II study of selumetinib in patients with metastatic biliary cancers. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2357–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. O'Neil BH,
    2. Goff LW,
    3. Kauh JS,
    4. Strosberg JR,
    5. Bekaii-Saab TS,
    6. Lee RM,
    7. et al.
    Phase II study of the mitogen-activated protein kinase 1/2 inhibitor selumetinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2350–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. He H,
    2. Jazdzewski K,
    3. Li W,
    4. Liyanarachchi S,
    5. Nagy R,
    6. Volinia S,
    7. et al.
    The role of microRNA genes in papillary thyroid carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:19075–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Kirkwood JM,
    2. Bastholt L,
    3. Robert C,
    4. Sosman J,
    5. Larkin J,
    6. Hersey P,
    7. et al.
    Phase II, open-label, randomized trial of the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib as monotherapy versus temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:555–67.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Hainsworth JD,
    2. Cebotaru CL,
    3. Kanarev V,
    4. Ciuleanu TE,
    5. Damyanov D,
    6. Stella P,
    7. et al.
    A phase II, open-label, randomized study to assess the efficacy and safety of AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) versus pemetrexed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have failed one or two prior chemotherapeutic regimens. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:1630–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Hayes DN,
    2. Lucas AS,
    3. Tanvetyanon T,
    4. Krzyzanowska MK,
    5. Chung CH,
    6. Murphy BA,
    7. et al.
    Phase II efficacy and pharmacogenomic study of Selumetinib (AZD6244; ARRY-142886) in iodine-131 refractory papillary thyroid carcinoma with or without follicular elements. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:2056–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Bennouna J,
    2. Lang I,
    3. Valladares-Ayerbes M,
    4. Boer K,
    5. Adenis A,
    6. Escudero P,
    7. et al.
    A Phase II, open-label, randomised study to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) versus capecitabine monotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer who have failed one or two prior chemotherapeutic regimens. Invest New Drugs 2011;29:1021–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Solit DB,
    2. Garraway LA,
    3. Pratilas CA,
    4. Sawai A,
    5. Getz G,
    6. Basso A,
    7. et al.
    BRAF mutation predicts sensitivity to MEK inhibition. Nature 2006;439:358–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Yeh JJ,
    2. Routh ED,
    3. Rubinas T,
    4. Peacock J,
    5. Martin TD,
    6. Shen XJ,
    7. et al.
    KRAS/BRAF mutation status and ERK1/2 activation as biomarkers for MEK1/2 inhibitor therapy in colorectal cancer. Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8:834–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Patel SP,
    2. Lazar AJ,
    3. Papadopoulos NE,
    4. Liu P,
    5. Infante JR,
    6. Glass MR,
    7. et al.
    Clinical responses to selumetinib (AZD6244; ARRY-142886)-based combination therapy stratified by gene mutations in patients with metastatic melanoma. Cancer 2013;119:799–805.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Catalanotti F,
    2. Solit DB,
    3. Pulitzer MP,
    4. Berger MF,
    5. Scott SN,
    6. Iyriboz T,
    7. et al.
    Phase II trial of MEK inhibitor selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) in patients with BRAFV600E/K-mutated melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:2257–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Janne PA,
    2. Shaw AT,
    3. Pereira JR,
    4. Jeannin G,
    5. Vansteenkiste J,
    6. Barrios C,
    7. et al.
    Selumetinib plus docetaxel for KRAS-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:38–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Robert C,
    2. Dummer R,
    3. Gutzmer R,
    4. Lorigan P,
    5. Kim KB,
    6. Nyakas M,
    7. et al.
    Selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment for BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma: a phase 2 double-blind randomised study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:733–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Borthakur G,
    2. Popplewell L,
    3. Boyiadzis M,
    4. Foran JM,
    5. Platzbecker U,
    6. Vey N,
    7. et al.
    Phase I/II trial of the MEK1/2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212) in relapsed/refractory myeloid malignancies: evidence of activity in patients with RAS mutation-positive disease. Blood 2012;120:677a.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Banerji U,
    2. Camidge DR,
    3. Verheul HM,
    4. Agarwal R,
    5. Sarker D,
    6. Kaye SB,
    7. et al.
    The first-in-human study of the hydrogen sulfate (Hyd-sulfate) capsule of the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886): a phase I open-label multicenter trial in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:1613–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Wee S,
    2. Jagani Z,
    3. Xiang KX,
    4. Loo A,
    5. Dorsch M,
    6. Yao YM,
    7. et al.
    PI3K pathway activation mediates resistance to MEK inhibitors in KRAS mutant cancers. Cancer Res 2009;69:4286–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Gopal YN,
    2. Deng W,
    3. Woodman SE,
    4. Komurov K,
    5. Ram P,
    6. Smith PD,
    7. et al.
    Basal and treatment-induced activation of AKT mediates resistance to cell death by AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in Braf-mutant human cutaneous melanoma cells. Cancer Res 2010;70:8736–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Won JK,
    2. Yang HW,
    3. Shin SY,
    4. Lee JH,
    5. Heo WD,
    6. Cho KH
    . The cross-regulation between ERK and PI3K signaling pathways determines the tumoricidal efficacy of MEK inhibitor. J Mol Cell Biol 2012;4:153–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Balmanno K,
    2. Chell SD,
    3. Gillings AS,
    4. Hayat S,
    5. Cook SJ
    . Intrinsic resistance to the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) is associated with weak ERK1/2 signalling and/or strong PI3K signalling in colorectal cancer cell lines. Int J Cancer 2009;125:2332–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Duncan JS,
    2. Whittle MC,
    3. Nakamura K,
    4. Abell AN,
    5. Midland AA,
    6. Zawistowski JS,
    7. et al.
    Dynamic reprogramming of the kinome in response to targeted MEK inhibition in triple-negative breast cancer. Cell 2012;149:307–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Liu H,
    2. Diaz-Flores E,
    3. Poiré X,
    4. Odenike O,
    5. Koval G,
    6. Malnassy G,
    7. et al.
    Combination of a MEK Inhibitor, AZD6244, and Dual PI3K/mTOR Inhibitor, NVP-BEZ235: an effective therapeutic strategy for acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 2010;116:3978a.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Milella M,
    2. Precupanu CM,
    3. Gregorj C,
    4. Ricciardi MR,
    5. Petrucci MT,
    6. Kornblau SM,
    7. et al.
    Beyond single pathway inhibition: MEK inhibitors as a platform for the development of pharmacological combinations with synergistic anti-leukemic effects. Curr Pharm Des 2005;11:2779–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 20 (2)
January 2014
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Phase II Study of the Oral MEK Inhibitor Selumetinib in Advanced Acute Myelogenous Leukemia: A University of Chicago Phase II Consortium Trial
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Phase II Study of the Oral MEK Inhibitor Selumetinib in Advanced Acute Myelogenous Leukemia: A University of Chicago Phase II Consortium Trial
Nitin Jain, Emily Curran, Neil M. Iyengar, Ernesto Diaz-Flores, Rangesh Kunnavakkam, Leslie Popplewell, Mark H. Kirschbaum, Theodore Karrison, Harry P. Erba, Margaret Green, Xavier Poire, Greg Koval, Kevin Shannon, Poluru L. Reddy, Loren Joseph, Ehab L. Atallah, Philip Dy, Sachdev P. Thomas, Scott E. Smith, L. Austin Doyle, Walter M. Stadler, Richard A. Larson, Wendy Stock and Olatoyosi Odenike
Clin Cancer Res January 15 2014 (20) (2) 490-498; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1311

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Phase II Study of the Oral MEK Inhibitor Selumetinib in Advanced Acute Myelogenous Leukemia: A University of Chicago Phase II Consortium Trial
Nitin Jain, Emily Curran, Neil M. Iyengar, Ernesto Diaz-Flores, Rangesh Kunnavakkam, Leslie Popplewell, Mark H. Kirschbaum, Theodore Karrison, Harry P. Erba, Margaret Green, Xavier Poire, Greg Koval, Kevin Shannon, Poluru L. Reddy, Loren Joseph, Ehab L. Atallah, Philip Dy, Sachdev P. Thomas, Scott E. Smith, L. Austin Doyle, Walter M. Stadler, Richard A. Larson, Wendy Stock and Olatoyosi Odenike
Clin Cancer Res January 15 2014 (20) (2) 490-498; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1311
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Biomarker Analysis from the BERIL-1 Study
  • Radiation and TGFβ Blockade in Metastatic Breast Cancer
  • Novel Intermediate Endpoint in Immunotherapy Studies
Show more Cancer Therapy: Clinical
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement