- Email: [email protected]
Prospective study of cutaneous side-effects associated with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib: a study of 42 patients
original articles
Annals of Oncology 29. Clasby R, Tilling K, Smith MA et al. Variable management of soft tissue sarcoma: regional audit with implications for specialist care. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 1692–1696. 30. Nijhuis PH, Schaapveld M, Otter R et al. Soft tissue sarcoma—compliance with guidelines. Cancer 2001; 91: 2186–2195. 31. Jansen-Landheer ML, Krijnen P, Oostindier MJ et al. Improved diagnosis and treatment of soft tissue sarcoma patients after implementation of national guidelines: a population-based study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35: 1326–1332. 32. Sampo MM, Ronty M, Tarkkanen M et al. Soft tissue sarcoma—a populationbased, nationwide study with special emphasis on local control. Acta Oncol 2012; 51: 706–712.
33. Clark MA, Thomas JM. Delay in referral to a specialist soft-tissue sarcoma unit. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005; 31: 443–448. 34. Hussein R, Smith MA. Soft tissue sarcomas: are current referral guidelines sufficient? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2005; 87: 171–173. 35. Lamb BW, Brown KF, Nagpal K et al. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18: 2116–2125. 36. Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Taylor C et al. Multidisciplinary team working across different tumour types: analysis of a national survey. Ann Oncol 2011; 23: 1293–1300.
Prospective study of cutaneous side-effects associated with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib: a study of 42 patients L. Boussemart1,2, E. Routier1, C. Mateus1, K. Opletalova1, G. Sebille1, N. Kamsu-Kom2, M. Thomas1, S. Vagner2, M. Favre3, G. Tomasic4, J. Wechsler1, L. Lacroix2 & C. Robert1,2 1 Department of Medical Oncology; 2Inserm, U981, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; 3Papillomavirus Unit, Inserm, U190, Institut Pasteur, Paris; 4Department of Pathology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
Received 3 October 2012; revised 16 December 2012; accepted 20 December 2012
Background: BRAF inhibitors are being developed for the treatment of metastatic melanoma harboring a V600E mutation. The use of vemurafenib significantly increases progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in this population of patients, but is associated with numerous adverse skin reactions. Patients and methods: We carried out a systematic dermatologic study of 42 patients treated with vemurafenib. We collected detailed dermatologic symptoms, photos and biopsy specimens of the skin lesions which enabled us to classify the side-effects. The management and evolution of the skin symptoms are also reported. Results: All patients presented with at least one adverse skin reaction. The most common cutaneous side-effects consisted in verrucous papillomas (79%) and hand–foot skin reaction (60%). Other common cutaneous toxic effects were a diffuse hyperkeratotic perifollicular rash (55%), photosensitivity (52%) and alopecia (45%). Epidermoid cysts (33%) and eruptive nevi (10%) were also observed. Keratoacanthomas (KA) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) occurred in 14% and 26% of the patients, respectively. Conclusions: These cutaneous side-effects are cause of concern due to their intrinsic potential for malignancy or because of their impact on patients’ quality of life. Management of this skin toxicity relies on symptomatic measures and sun photoprotection. Key words: BRAF inhibitor, melanoma, side-effects, squamous cell carcinoma-targeted therapy, vemurafenib
introduction New anticancer therapies targeting various kinases implicated in cancer onset or progression are now commonly used and they improve the prognosis of several cancers. Activating B-RAF (V600E) (also known as BRAF) kinase mutations occur in ∼7% of human malignancies and ∼60% of
*Correspondence to: Dr C. Robert, Department of Medical Oncology, Institute Gustave Roussy, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. Tel: +33-1-42-11-42-10; Fax: +33-1-42-11-50-02; E-mail: [email protected]
melanomas [1]. A novel class I RAF-selective inhibitor, vemurafenib, demonstrated an unprecedented 60% antitumor response rate among patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive melanomas, but vemurafenib is not devoid of side-effects. Among the most intriguing of these side-effects are skin neoplasms originating from keratinocytes that occur following treatment with BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib), as previously observed with sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor and a pan-RAF inhibitor [2]. In this study, we prospectively followed up 42 patients undergoing vemurafenib treatment either in the context of
© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
Annals of Oncology 24: 1691–1697, 2013 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt015 Published online 13 February 2013
original articles BRIM3 (13 patients), an open phase III clinical study comparing vemurafenib with dacarbazine as the first systemic therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma [3] or in patients receiving vemurafenib in a compassionate use program (29 patients from December 2010 until March 2012). All of these patients developed adverse skin reactions and the spectrum of skin symptoms was akin to that recently described with dabrafenib [4], suggesting that they result from a class effect.
Between March 2010 and March 2012, 42 patients (25 men and 17 women) with a mean age of 53 years (range 28–86 years) who were treated with vemurafenib underwent a dermatologic evaluation and photography every 3 weeks. Detailed descriptions of clinical and pathological features as well as characterization of the severity and evolution of these cutaneous effects were undertaken. Data were collected at each clinic visit during this study. Patients were questioned about skin symptoms and skin events. The dermatologic examination was carried out, at baseline and every 3 weeks, by dermatologists familiar with vemurafenib and its potential adverse effects. Cutaneous lesions occurring during therapy were photographed and biopsied for pathological examination in willing patients. Cutaneous reactions were classified according to the National Cancer Institute’s Common Toxicity Criteria 4.02, 2009. We included all consecutive patients enrolled in the vemurafenib arm of the BRIM 3 study in our center as well as 29 patients receiving the drug through compassionate use. Forty-one patients had a stage IV melanoma and one patient, stage IIIC disease. Patient clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. Vemurafenib was given orally at an initial dose of 960 mg bid. Patients were not taking any immunosuppressive or photosensitivity-inducing drug. No patient had a history of papilloma, keratoacanthoma (KA) or SCC. Skin punch biopsies (4 mm) were carried out before treatment in seven patients, and under treatment in 18 patients. Immunohistochemical analysis of all biopsy specimens was carried out with the anti-p16 antibody (mouse anti-human p16INK4a antibody, CINtec Histology Kit 9511) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
results The diverse cutaneous symptoms which occurred in each patient under vemurafenib are reported in Table 2. All patients experienced at least one cutaneous side-effect. Both benign and malignant skin tumors occurred during vemurafenib therapy, but the most common cutaneous sideeffect consisted in the appearance of benign verrucous papillomas (33 patients, 79%) with a mean time to onset of 35 days (7–100). Verrucous papillomas exhibited polypoid lesions with a verrucous and hyperkeratotic surface (Figure 1A). They were observed essentially on the face and the trunk, but also on the limbs. They usually measured between 3 and 5 mm. An efflorescence of those papillomas occurred in about half of the patients, who developed from 4 to 20 papillomas. An efflorescence of nevi was also observed in four patients at a mean time to onset of 81 days (52–130 days), as described before under sorafenib [5]. Cystic lesions presenting as milia cysts on the face were seen in 13 patients (31%) and occurred after a mean time to onset
| Boussemart et al.
of 48 days (21–83 days). Epidermoid cysts were observed in 14 patients (33%), with a mean time to onset of 108 days (7–253). Regarding borderline or malignant skin tumors, one patient ( patient 1) developed a second primary melanoma on the trunk, which was diagnosed after 84 days of treatment. It was a second superficial spreading melanoma, with a Breslow index of 0.34 mm. Six patients (14%) developed a KA with a mean time to onset of 77 days (27–172) and microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) arose in 11 patients (26%) at a mean time to onset of 111 days (50–515). The KA and the SCC were localized on diverse areas such as the face, neck, trunk or thigh. One SCC developed on the vulva. All these tumors were simply excised, and none required vemurafenib dose modification. Atypical keratinocytes corresponding to koilocyte-like cells were present in the stratum granulosum in several skin lesions: 66% of papillomas, but also in some KAs (50%) and SCC (16%) (Figure 1B and C). Because both clinical appearance and presence of koilocytes suggested that human papillomaviruses (HPVs) might be involved in this process, we carried out immunostaining for P16 in 17 skin tumors from our patients: 9 papillomas, 2 KAs and 6 SCC. P16 is a tumor suppressor gene product that is overexpressed in most cervical carcinomas and dysplasias associated with HPV infection [6]. Among the 17 tumors tested, 11 (65%) were positive for p16: 5 papillomas, 2 KAs and 4 SCC (Figure 2). Another common cutaneous side-effect consisted in the hand–foot skin reaction (25 patients, 60%) (Figure 3), predominantly on the soles (the reaction was graded 1 and 2 in 22 and 3 patients, respectively). The hyperkeratosis typically presented as yellowish, painful, hyperkeratotic plaques localized on the pressure points on the sole of the foot (heels and metatarsals). We did not observe any bullous lesions occurring during those hand–foot skin reactions, and those symptoms did not affect the patient’s ability to walk. The mean time to onset was 61 days (8–300) and patients were treated with urea-based cream (10%–30% of urea). The hyperkeratosis on the palms and soles was similar to that described under sorafenib treatment [7]. No paronychia was observed. Mucosal hyperkeratosis was also observed in two patients: vulvar hyperkeratosis ( patient 9) and gum hyperkeratosis ( patient 2, supplementary Figure S1, available at Annals of Oncology online). Half of the patients suffered from photosensitivity, particularly those treated with vemurafenib during summer time. This cutaneous photosensitivity consisted in eruptions arising on sun-exposed areas of the skin: the face, ears, dorsal forearms and the ‘v’-area of the neck and upper chest (Figure 4). Sixteen patients exhibited grade 1 photosensitivity with simple erythema covering <10% of the body surface area, four patients experienced grade 2 photosensitivity with tender erythema covering 10%–30% of the body surface area and two patients developed grade 3 photosensitivity with blistering. Photosensitivity prevention involving maximal sun avoidance in addition to protective clothing and sunscreen photoprotection, even for minimal sun exposure, was advised for all patients. Nevertheless, photoprotection counseling did not always prevent photosensitivity reactions. Among the 22 patients who developed photosensitivity, six also suffered from cheilitis, predominantly on the lower lip in
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
patients and methods
Annals of Oncology
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of each patient HFSR Nipple HK
1 2 3 4 5
F M F M F
58 55 59 80 57
x x x x x
x x x
x x
x
x
6
F
48
7 8
M M
41 54
x x
x x
9
F
44
x
x
x
x
X
x
10 M 11 M
42 70
x x
x x
x
x
X
x
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
60 42 29 37 37 39 54 44 50 65 57 66 86 34 74 71 55 59 39 49 58 26 84 54 51 49 70 43 31 50 70
x
x x x
x x x x
x x
M M M F F M M M M F F F M F M M M M M M F F M M M F F M F M F
x
x
x x x
x x x
x
x
X X X X X
x
x
X
x
Nevi Xerosis Panniculitis Hair modification x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x x x
x
x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x
X X X
x
x
X X X X X X X
x
x x x x
x x x
x x
x x
X X X X X X X X X X X X
x x x
Lower lip cheilitis, second melanoma, one actinic keratosis Lower lip cheilitis, Darier’s disease flare-up, gingival hyperkeratosis Grade 2 alopecia, >20 verrucous papillomas >10 verrucous papillomas Grade 2 alopecia, HFSR grade 2, frontal and vulvar milia, lower lip cheilitis, five verrucous papillomas, two SCC, one actinic keratosis Lower lip cheilitis, thinner and slower hair growth, two verrucous papillomas Maculopapular exanthema, cheilitis Slower hair growth followed by grade 1 alopecia, lower lip cheilitis, 2 BCC Frontal milia, bitemporal effluvium, slower body hair growth, vulvar leucoplasia, panniculitis, two SCC Atopic dermatitis improvement Follicular hyperkeratosic rash with pilar dystrophy, HFSR grade 2, 4 verrucous papilloma Follicular hyperkeratosic rash with pilar dystrophy, pruritus Rash with pilar dystrophy and cysts Facial erythema, radiodermatitis
Maculopapular rash, facial erythema Milia, verrucous papilloma Maculopapular rash, facial and vulvar erythema Maculopapular rash, facial and feet oedema, HFSR grade 2 Maculopapular rash, facial milia
x
Thinner hair, panniculitis
x x
Thinner hair, radiodermatitis Thinner hair, pruritus Two invasive SCC
x
x x
Miscellaneous
Urticaria
x X
x x
KA/ SCC
x
x x x
Papilloma/ warts
x x
x
x x
Cysts/ milia
Panniculitis
x x
x
Invasive SCC
x
x
x x
x
x
Inflammatory seborrheic keratosis, panniculitis, five SCC, three KA Grade 3 photosensitivity Panniculitis
x
Vulvar invasive SCC
x
x
HFSR, Hand–foot skin reaction; HK, hyperkeratosis; KA, keratoacanthoma; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.
original articles
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt015 |
Photosensitivity Follicular rash
Annals of Oncology
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
S Sex Age, No. years
original articles
Annals of Oncology
Table 2. Cutaneous symptoms reported among our 42 patients, classified in the order of decreasing frequency Cutaneous symptoms
N
Prevalence (%)
Start day
Verrucous papilloma Hand–foot skin reaction Hyperkeratosic follicular rash Photosensitivity Hair growth modification Xerosis Cystic lesion Milia SCC Facial erythema Cheilitis Panniculitis Keratoacanthoma (KA) Nipple hyperkeratosis Naevi efflorescence Severe radiodermatitis
33 25 23 22 19 14 14 13 11 7 6 6 6 5 4 2
79 60 55 52 45 33 33 31 26 17 14 14 14 12 10 5
35 (7–100) 61 (8–300) 32 (7–80) 47 (2–166) 61 (20–150) 57 (2–180) 108 (7–253) 48 (21–83) 111 (50–515) 62 (10–140) 32 (7–41) 78 (9–240) 77 (27–172) 76 (30–120) 81 (52–130) 34 (13–55)
exhibited real alopecia (five grade 1 and two grade 2). It was usually associated with slower body hair growth. These changes in hair growth did not lead to a dose reduction in any patient. Interestingly, this alopecia was spontaneously reversible within 6 months of treatment with thinner hair growth despite continued treatment (supplementary Figure S4, available at Annals of Oncology online). Grade 1 xerosis was not uncommon as it affected 14 patients (33%), with a mean time to onset of 57 days (2–180). The xerosis was sometimes associated with mild pruritus. It was easily improved with the use of emollient creams. Interestingly, one patient diagnosed as having atopic dermatitis for years before vemurafenib treatment, experienced greatly improved eczema symptoms within the first week until the fifth month of treatment. Moderate erythema of the face was reported in seven patients (17%) with a mean time to onset of 62 days (10–140 days), and was associated with photosensitivity in six of those seven patients. The facial drug reaction appeared as a homogeneous, slightly erythematous facial eruption associated with superficial desquamation. Lesions usually involved the mediofacial area and spared the periorbital area, as previously described with sorafenib [5]. Six patients (14%) developed panniculitis of the lower extremities with a mean time to onset of 78 days (9–240). Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and Weber–Christian disease were ruled out due to normal alpha-1 antitrypsin and pancreatic enzyme levels. Two patients developed a relatively severe radiodermatitis, with severe erythema associated with vesicular or bullous lesions restricted to the irradiated area. Those eruptions resolved within a week with daily use of topical steroids (supplementary Figure S5, available at Annals of Oncology online). Within 3 weeks of treatment, one patient also had a rash reminiscent of Darier’s disease, with typical clinical and pathological characteristics of this condition [8]: he presented with a flare-up of greasy, scaly papules on the back, associated with gingival lesions, and the skin biopsy specimens revealed typical abnormal intra-keratinocyte adhesion typical of Darier’s disease.
Figure 1. (A) A typical verrucous papilloma observed on the trunk of a patient 3 treated with vemurafenib for 42 days. Note the associated follicular hyperkeratosis of the surrounding skin. (B and C) Histological section of a verrucous papilloma (hematoxylin–eosin, original magnification B × 2.5 and C × 20). Note the perinuclear clear spaces in the superficial layers of the epidermis visible at high magnification, mimicking HPV-altered koilocytes. 341 × 136 mm (96 × 96 DPI).
| Boussemart et al.
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
five of them. This grade 1 cheilitis emerged after a mean time to onset of 32 days (7–41). It did not lead to a dose reduction in any patient, and usually resolved spontaneously within a week or two. Twenty-three of the 42 patients (55%) also developed an skin rash consisting in grade 1 or 2 erythematous, hyperkeratotic follicular papules, arising after a mean time to onset of 32 days (7–80), predominantly on the back of the arms and on the front of the thighs (supplementary Figure S2, available at Annals of Oncology online). When carried out on these lesions, skin biopsies revealed pilar dystrophy or folliculitis. This hyperkeratotic perifollicular rash was associated with grade 1 bilateral yellowish nipple hyperkeratosis in five patients (supplementary Figure S3, available at Annals of Oncology online). Altered hair growth was observed in 19 patients (45%). At a mean interval of 2 months (20–150 days), 12 patients noted slower and thinner growth of scalp hair, while 7 other patients
Annals of Oncology
original articles
Figure 4. Photosensitivity after 40 days of treatment with vemurafenib ( patient 9) 255 × 153 mm (96 × 96 DPI).
Figure 3. Bilateral hyperkeratosis of the soles in patient 2 after 2 months of vemurafenib. 114 × 151 mm (96 × 96 DPI).
discussion This is the first and largest prospective study of skin sideeffects occurring during vemurafenib therapy. The main finding resulting from this study is that, in a prospective setting, with patients being examined by a dermatologist, all
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
patients developed at least one cutaneous side-effect. This signifies that the reports of cutaneous side-effects documented by oncologists frequently underestimate the true frequency of these adverse events. Thirty-two patients (76%) developed a rash, either secondary to photosensitivity, or a perifollicular hyperkeratotic rash. Compared with that observed with cetuximab (a monoclonal antibody against EGFR), this perifollicular eruption was more hyperkeratotic than acneiform, and predominantly localized on the limbs. Exacerbation of hyperkeratosis was also clearly visible on the hands, feet or nipples in 27 patients (64%). This keratinocyte proliferation, which can also be involved in the formation of papillomas, KA and SCC, could be attributed to the ability of vemurafenib to paradoxically activate the Mitogen-Activated Protein (MAP) Kinase (MAPK) pathway in cells devoid of a BRAF mutation, as previously demonstrated in vitro [9] and in
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt015 |
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
Figure 2. Strong P16 immunostaining of a microinvasive SCC resected 109 days after the start of vemurafenib therapy ( patient 9). 162 × 114 mm (96 × 96 DPI).
original articles
| Boussemart et al.
should be alerted to the likelihood of these skin adverse events and should receive advice regarding effective photoprotection. As Dummer et al. recently demonstrated, this effect is mediated by ultraviolet A radiation (UVA) part of the solar UV spectrum [18] and should be explained to each patient, recommending the use of broadband UV-sunscreen including UVA rays as well as UV-dense clothing regardless of daylight and season, as UVA penetrates glass. Most the SCC we diagnosed were resected at a microinvasive stage, thus rendering the risk of metastasis minimal. It is nevertheless critical to carefully and completely examine the skin of patients under vemurafenib at each consultation, every month at least, and to ask the patient to promptly report any new skin lesion in order to avoid the development of more invasive SCC. Because of our hypothesis that papillomaviruses might act as cofactors in the occurrence of some skin and genital tumors in this context, we recommend an oral and genital examination as well as a pap smear test before initiating anti-BRAF therapy. We do not know whether this paradoxical proliferative effect is limited to skin cells or whether it would affect other cells in the body. That is why a stringent follow-up is required when using these drugs, particularly if they are given to patients with a long-life expectancy, in an adjuvant setting. Additional BRAF inhibitors are being developed, and a phase III trial evaluating dabrafenib was recently presented, with a similar efficacy in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and a very close spectrum of skin adverse events, although the latter drug seems to be devoid of photosensitivity effects [19]. As vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors are being increasingly prescribed, it is important to clearly signal their numerous adverse skin reactions, their nature, how they evolve but also how to prevent and treat them. Thus, the skin adverse reactions reported and detailed here are likely to represent a class effect rather than molecule-specific manifestations. Hopefully, in the near future, the proliferative cutaneous side-effects of BRAF inhibitors might at least be partially annihilated by combining BRAF-specific targeted therapy with anti-MEK drugs, which block the MAPK pathway downstream of BRAF. Indeed, the preliminary clinical studies have suggested that anti-MEK-targeted therapy does not induce any proliferative skin symptoms such as SCC and KA seen under anti-RAF drugs [20, 21]. Thus, the anti-BRAF and anti-MEK combination could not only increase the treatment efficacy but also prevent the emergence of secondary tumors observed under anti-BRAF treatment.
acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the patients for enabling them to present these cases to a scientific audience in the form of an article. The authors thank Lorna Saint Ange for editing.
disclosure CR is a consultant for Roche, GSK, BMS, Novartis. The other authors have declared no conflicts of interest and there were no funds for this study.
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
vivo [10]. The skin tumors observed in our study occurred at a similar frequency to that described in the large pivotal phase III study BRIM-3 with respect to SCC and KA [3] although it was found to be much less frequent in a large series of patients receiving vemurafenib in the context of an extended access program (<5%) [11]. However, it can be suspected that dermatology follow-up is less strict in the latter study and that the real incidence of these skin proliferations might have been underestimated. In 2008, our team described similar but less frequent SCC, cysts, milia, and palmo-plantar hyperkeratosis among patients undergoing treatment with sorafenib, a panRAF inhibitor [2]. The cellular proliferation of wild-type cells in the skin could also explain the eruptive nevi phenomenon observed in our study (10% of our patients) and under sorafenib therapy through a similar pathway [12]. As it has also been reported by others, one of our patients developed a second melanoma under vemurafenib [13, 14]. The possibility of malignant melanocytic proliferation under vemurafenib could also be explained by paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway in wt-BRAF melanocytes. Indeed, any patient undergoing vemurafenib treatment may develop BRAF wild-type (wt) nevi that could paradoxically degenerate under this targeted therapy. Until now, there was no clear demonstration that melanoma occurring under vemurafenib therapy could be due to the transformation of a RAS mutated pigmented naevus, but it is also possible that somatic events distinct from a RAS mutation could be involved. This risk should be particularly acknowledged, as vemurafenib is currently being evaluated as an adjuvant therapy. Additional somatic events, namely oncogene mutations or papillomavirus infection, might be cofactors of paradoxical cell proliferation facilitated by BRAF inhibitors in the context of wt-BRAF. Indeed, we and others demonstrated a high frequency of ras, TGF-β-receptor or p53 oncogenic mutation in skin tumors among patients treated with BRAF inhibitors [11, 12, 15]. BRAF-specific inhibitors like vemurafenib and dabrafenib induce verrucous papillomas more frequently than sorafenib. The presence of koilocytes and p16-positive keratinocytes in some of the lesions presented by our patients suggests a potential role for HPVs in at least a subset of these tumors. This is highlighted by the occurrence in one of our patients of an invasive SCC of the vulva, 12 weeks after vemurafenib initiation. We are presently carrying out further investigations to evaluate the causative role of these viruses in the emergence of epithelial tumors. Although it is difficult to draw conclusions based on a series of 42 patients, patients who experienced the most severe skin toxicity did not seem to have enjoyed longer survival as reported with EGFR inhibitors [16, 17]. Fortunately, none of these skin symptoms led to the interruption of therapy as long as the metastatic melanoma continued to respond. Most of the cutaneous symptoms appearing under vemurafenib were improved with symptomatic treatment. Proper identification and treatment of vemurafenib-induced skin toxicity help to improve the quality of life in patients with cancer, thereby promoting compliance with antineoplastic treatment and consequently prolonging survival. Prevention should consist of clearly informing the patients about the side effects before initiating therapy. The patients
Annals of Oncology
original articles
Annals of Oncology
references
Annals of Oncology 24: 1697–1703, 2013 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt027 Published online 24 February 2013
Experience in daily practice with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma: an early increase in lymphocyte and eosinophil counts is associated with improved survival J. Delyon1*, C. Mateus1, D. Lefeuvre2, E. Lanoy2, L. Zitvogel3,4,5, N. Chaput4, S. Roy1, A. M. M. Eggermont6, E. Routier1 & C. Robert1,7 1 Dermatology Unit; 2Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology; 3INSERM U1015; 4Center of clinical investigations CICBT 507, Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; 5Faculty of Medicine, Université Paris Sud/Paris 11, Le Kremlin Bicêtre; 6Oncology Unit; 7INSERM U981, Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
Received 5 October 2012; revised 4 January 2013; accepted 7 January 2013
Background: Ipilimumab is a recently approved immunotherapy that has demonstrated an improvement in the overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic melanoma. We report a single-institution experience in patients treated in a compassionate-use program. Patients and methods: In this prospective study, patients were treated between June 2010 and September 2011. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, at least one previous line of chemotherapy, and survival 12 weeks after the first perfusion. Four courses of ipilimumab were administered at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks.
*Correspondence to: Dr J. Delyon, Dermatology Unit, Gustave Roussy Institute-114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. Tel: +33-1-42-11-42-10; Fax: +33-1-42-1150-02; E-mail: [email protected]
© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
1. Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 2002; 417(6892): 949–954. 2. Arnault JP, Wechsler J, Escudier B et al. Keratoacanthomas and squamous cell carcinomas in patients receiving sorafenib. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(23): e59–e61. 3. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(26): 2507–2516. 4. Hong S, Hong S, Han SB. Overcoming metastatic melanoma with BRAF inhibitors. Arch Pharm Res 2011; 34(5): 699–701. 5. Kong HH, Sibaud V, Chanco Turner ML et al. Sorafenib-induced eruptive melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144(6): 820–822. 6. Tsoumpou I, Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M et al. p16(INK4a) immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2009; 35(3): 210–220. 7. Autier J, Escudier B, Wechsler J et al. Prospective study of the cutaneous adverse effects of sorafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144(7): 886–892. 8. Szigeti R, Kellermayer R. Autosomal-dominant calcium ATPase disorders. J Invest Dermatol 2006; 126(11): 2370–2376. 9. Hatzivassiliou G, Song K, Yen I et al. RAF inhibitors prime wild-type RAF to activate the MAPK pathway and enhance growth. Nature 2010; 464(7287): 431–435. 10. Su F, Viros A, Milagre C et al. RAS mutations in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(3): 207–215. 11. Blank C, Del Vecchio M, Ascierto PA et al. Personal communication, ESMO 2012.
12. Arnault JP, Mateus C, Escudier B et al. Skin tumors induced by sorafenib; paradoxic RAS–RAF pathway activation and oncogenic mutations of HRAS, TP53, and TGFBR1. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(1): 263–272. 13. Zimmer L, Hillen U, Livingstone E et al. Atypical melanocytic proliferations and new primary melanomas in patients with advanced melanoma undergoing selective BRAF inhibition. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(19): 2375–2383. 14. Dalle S, Poulalhon N, Thomas L. Vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365(15): 1448–1449. 15. Oberholzer PA, Kee D, Dziunycz P et al. RAS mutations are associated with the development of cutaneous squamous cell tumors in patients treated with RAF inhibitors. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(3): 316–321. 16. Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ, Sr et al. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1201–1208. 17. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 337–345. 18. Dummer R, Rinderknecht J, Goldinger SM. Ultraviolet A and photosensitivity during vemurafenib therapy. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(5): 480–481. 19. Hauschild A, Grob JJ, Demidov LV et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 380(9839): 358–365. 20. Flaherty KT, Robert C, Hersey P et al. Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(2): 107–114. 21. Falchook GS, Lewis KD, Infante JR et al. Activity of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced melanoma: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13(8): 782–789.
Annals of Oncology 29. Clasby R, Tilling K, Smith MA et al. Variable management of soft tissue sarcoma: regional audit with implications for specialist care. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 1692–1696. 30. Nijhuis PH, Schaapveld M, Otter R et al. Soft tissue sarcoma—compliance with guidelines. Cancer 2001; 91: 2186–2195. 31. Jansen-Landheer ML, Krijnen P, Oostindier MJ et al. Improved diagnosis and treatment of soft tissue sarcoma patients after implementation of national guidelines: a population-based study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35: 1326–1332. 32. Sampo MM, Ronty M, Tarkkanen M et al. Soft tissue sarcoma—a populationbased, nationwide study with special emphasis on local control. Acta Oncol 2012; 51: 706–712.
33. Clark MA, Thomas JM. Delay in referral to a specialist soft-tissue sarcoma unit. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005; 31: 443–448. 34. Hussein R, Smith MA. Soft tissue sarcomas: are current referral guidelines sufficient? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2005; 87: 171–173. 35. Lamb BW, Brown KF, Nagpal K et al. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18: 2116–2125. 36. Lamb BW, Sevdalis N, Taylor C et al. Multidisciplinary team working across different tumour types: analysis of a national survey. Ann Oncol 2011; 23: 1293–1300.
Prospective study of cutaneous side-effects associated with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib: a study of 42 patients L. Boussemart1,2, E. Routier1, C. Mateus1, K. Opletalova1, G. Sebille1, N. Kamsu-Kom2, M. Thomas1, S. Vagner2, M. Favre3, G. Tomasic4, J. Wechsler1, L. Lacroix2 & C. Robert1,2 1 Department of Medical Oncology; 2Inserm, U981, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; 3Papillomavirus Unit, Inserm, U190, Institut Pasteur, Paris; 4Department of Pathology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
Received 3 October 2012; revised 16 December 2012; accepted 20 December 2012
Background: BRAF inhibitors are being developed for the treatment of metastatic melanoma harboring a V600E mutation. The use of vemurafenib significantly increases progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in this population of patients, but is associated with numerous adverse skin reactions. Patients and methods: We carried out a systematic dermatologic study of 42 patients treated with vemurafenib. We collected detailed dermatologic symptoms, photos and biopsy specimens of the skin lesions which enabled us to classify the side-effects. The management and evolution of the skin symptoms are also reported. Results: All patients presented with at least one adverse skin reaction. The most common cutaneous side-effects consisted in verrucous papillomas (79%) and hand–foot skin reaction (60%). Other common cutaneous toxic effects were a diffuse hyperkeratotic perifollicular rash (55%), photosensitivity (52%) and alopecia (45%). Epidermoid cysts (33%) and eruptive nevi (10%) were also observed. Keratoacanthomas (KA) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) occurred in 14% and 26% of the patients, respectively. Conclusions: These cutaneous side-effects are cause of concern due to their intrinsic potential for malignancy or because of their impact on patients’ quality of life. Management of this skin toxicity relies on symptomatic measures and sun photoprotection. Key words: BRAF inhibitor, melanoma, side-effects, squamous cell carcinoma-targeted therapy, vemurafenib
introduction New anticancer therapies targeting various kinases implicated in cancer onset or progression are now commonly used and they improve the prognosis of several cancers. Activating B-RAF (V600E) (also known as BRAF) kinase mutations occur in ∼7% of human malignancies and ∼60% of
*Correspondence to: Dr C. Robert, Department of Medical Oncology, Institute Gustave Roussy, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. Tel: +33-1-42-11-42-10; Fax: +33-1-42-11-50-02; E-mail: [email protected]
melanomas [1]. A novel class I RAF-selective inhibitor, vemurafenib, demonstrated an unprecedented 60% antitumor response rate among patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive melanomas, but vemurafenib is not devoid of side-effects. Among the most intriguing of these side-effects are skin neoplasms originating from keratinocytes that occur following treatment with BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib), as previously observed with sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor and a pan-RAF inhibitor [2]. In this study, we prospectively followed up 42 patients undergoing vemurafenib treatment either in the context of
© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
Annals of Oncology 24: 1691–1697, 2013 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt015 Published online 13 February 2013
original articles BRIM3 (13 patients), an open phase III clinical study comparing vemurafenib with dacarbazine as the first systemic therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma [3] or in patients receiving vemurafenib in a compassionate use program (29 patients from December 2010 until March 2012). All of these patients developed adverse skin reactions and the spectrum of skin symptoms was akin to that recently described with dabrafenib [4], suggesting that they result from a class effect.
Between March 2010 and March 2012, 42 patients (25 men and 17 women) with a mean age of 53 years (range 28–86 years) who were treated with vemurafenib underwent a dermatologic evaluation and photography every 3 weeks. Detailed descriptions of clinical and pathological features as well as characterization of the severity and evolution of these cutaneous effects were undertaken. Data were collected at each clinic visit during this study. Patients were questioned about skin symptoms and skin events. The dermatologic examination was carried out, at baseline and every 3 weeks, by dermatologists familiar with vemurafenib and its potential adverse effects. Cutaneous lesions occurring during therapy were photographed and biopsied for pathological examination in willing patients. Cutaneous reactions were classified according to the National Cancer Institute’s Common Toxicity Criteria 4.02, 2009. We included all consecutive patients enrolled in the vemurafenib arm of the BRIM 3 study in our center as well as 29 patients receiving the drug through compassionate use. Forty-one patients had a stage IV melanoma and one patient, stage IIIC disease. Patient clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. Vemurafenib was given orally at an initial dose of 960 mg bid. Patients were not taking any immunosuppressive or photosensitivity-inducing drug. No patient had a history of papilloma, keratoacanthoma (KA) or SCC. Skin punch biopsies (4 mm) were carried out before treatment in seven patients, and under treatment in 18 patients. Immunohistochemical analysis of all biopsy specimens was carried out with the anti-p16 antibody (mouse anti-human p16INK4a antibody, CINtec Histology Kit 9511) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
results The diverse cutaneous symptoms which occurred in each patient under vemurafenib are reported in Table 2. All patients experienced at least one cutaneous side-effect. Both benign and malignant skin tumors occurred during vemurafenib therapy, but the most common cutaneous sideeffect consisted in the appearance of benign verrucous papillomas (33 patients, 79%) with a mean time to onset of 35 days (7–100). Verrucous papillomas exhibited polypoid lesions with a verrucous and hyperkeratotic surface (Figure 1A). They were observed essentially on the face and the trunk, but also on the limbs. They usually measured between 3 and 5 mm. An efflorescence of those papillomas occurred in about half of the patients, who developed from 4 to 20 papillomas. An efflorescence of nevi was also observed in four patients at a mean time to onset of 81 days (52–130 days), as described before under sorafenib [5]. Cystic lesions presenting as milia cysts on the face were seen in 13 patients (31%) and occurred after a mean time to onset
| Boussemart et al.
of 48 days (21–83 days). Epidermoid cysts were observed in 14 patients (33%), with a mean time to onset of 108 days (7–253). Regarding borderline or malignant skin tumors, one patient ( patient 1) developed a second primary melanoma on the trunk, which was diagnosed after 84 days of treatment. It was a second superficial spreading melanoma, with a Breslow index of 0.34 mm. Six patients (14%) developed a KA with a mean time to onset of 77 days (27–172) and microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) arose in 11 patients (26%) at a mean time to onset of 111 days (50–515). The KA and the SCC were localized on diverse areas such as the face, neck, trunk or thigh. One SCC developed on the vulva. All these tumors were simply excised, and none required vemurafenib dose modification. Atypical keratinocytes corresponding to koilocyte-like cells were present in the stratum granulosum in several skin lesions: 66% of papillomas, but also in some KAs (50%) and SCC (16%) (Figure 1B and C). Because both clinical appearance and presence of koilocytes suggested that human papillomaviruses (HPVs) might be involved in this process, we carried out immunostaining for P16 in 17 skin tumors from our patients: 9 papillomas, 2 KAs and 6 SCC. P16 is a tumor suppressor gene product that is overexpressed in most cervical carcinomas and dysplasias associated with HPV infection [6]. Among the 17 tumors tested, 11 (65%) were positive for p16: 5 papillomas, 2 KAs and 4 SCC (Figure 2). Another common cutaneous side-effect consisted in the hand–foot skin reaction (25 patients, 60%) (Figure 3), predominantly on the soles (the reaction was graded 1 and 2 in 22 and 3 patients, respectively). The hyperkeratosis typically presented as yellowish, painful, hyperkeratotic plaques localized on the pressure points on the sole of the foot (heels and metatarsals). We did not observe any bullous lesions occurring during those hand–foot skin reactions, and those symptoms did not affect the patient’s ability to walk. The mean time to onset was 61 days (8–300) and patients were treated with urea-based cream (10%–30% of urea). The hyperkeratosis on the palms and soles was similar to that described under sorafenib treatment [7]. No paronychia was observed. Mucosal hyperkeratosis was also observed in two patients: vulvar hyperkeratosis ( patient 9) and gum hyperkeratosis ( patient 2, supplementary Figure S1, available at Annals of Oncology online). Half of the patients suffered from photosensitivity, particularly those treated with vemurafenib during summer time. This cutaneous photosensitivity consisted in eruptions arising on sun-exposed areas of the skin: the face, ears, dorsal forearms and the ‘v’-area of the neck and upper chest (Figure 4). Sixteen patients exhibited grade 1 photosensitivity with simple erythema covering <10% of the body surface area, four patients experienced grade 2 photosensitivity with tender erythema covering 10%–30% of the body surface area and two patients developed grade 3 photosensitivity with blistering. Photosensitivity prevention involving maximal sun avoidance in addition to protective clothing and sunscreen photoprotection, even for minimal sun exposure, was advised for all patients. Nevertheless, photoprotection counseling did not always prevent photosensitivity reactions. Among the 22 patients who developed photosensitivity, six also suffered from cheilitis, predominantly on the lower lip in
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
patients and methods
Annals of Oncology
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of each patient HFSR Nipple HK
1 2 3 4 5
F M F M F
58 55 59 80 57
x x x x x
x x x
x x
x
x
6
F
48
7 8
M M
41 54
x x
x x
9
F
44
x
x
x
x
X
x
10 M 11 M
42 70
x x
x x
x
x
X
x
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
60 42 29 37 37 39 54 44 50 65 57 66 86 34 74 71 55 59 39 49 58 26 84 54 51 49 70 43 31 50 70
x
x x x
x x x x
x x
M M M F F M M M M F F F M F M M M M M M F F M M M F F M F M F
x
x
x x x
x x x
x
x
X X X X X
x
x
X
x
Nevi Xerosis Panniculitis Hair modification x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x x x
x
x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x
X X X
x
x
X X X X X X X
x
x x x x
x x x
x x
x x
X X X X X X X X X X X X
x x x
Lower lip cheilitis, second melanoma, one actinic keratosis Lower lip cheilitis, Darier’s disease flare-up, gingival hyperkeratosis Grade 2 alopecia, >20 verrucous papillomas >10 verrucous papillomas Grade 2 alopecia, HFSR grade 2, frontal and vulvar milia, lower lip cheilitis, five verrucous papillomas, two SCC, one actinic keratosis Lower lip cheilitis, thinner and slower hair growth, two verrucous papillomas Maculopapular exanthema, cheilitis Slower hair growth followed by grade 1 alopecia, lower lip cheilitis, 2 BCC Frontal milia, bitemporal effluvium, slower body hair growth, vulvar leucoplasia, panniculitis, two SCC Atopic dermatitis improvement Follicular hyperkeratosic rash with pilar dystrophy, HFSR grade 2, 4 verrucous papilloma Follicular hyperkeratosic rash with pilar dystrophy, pruritus Rash with pilar dystrophy and cysts Facial erythema, radiodermatitis
Maculopapular rash, facial erythema Milia, verrucous papilloma Maculopapular rash, facial and vulvar erythema Maculopapular rash, facial and feet oedema, HFSR grade 2 Maculopapular rash, facial milia
x
Thinner hair, panniculitis
x x
Thinner hair, radiodermatitis Thinner hair, pruritus Two invasive SCC
x
x x
Miscellaneous
Urticaria
x X
x x
KA/ SCC
x
x x x
Papilloma/ warts
x x
x
x x
Cysts/ milia
Panniculitis
x x
x
Invasive SCC
x
x
x x
x
x
Inflammatory seborrheic keratosis, panniculitis, five SCC, three KA Grade 3 photosensitivity Panniculitis
x
Vulvar invasive SCC
x
x
HFSR, Hand–foot skin reaction; HK, hyperkeratosis; KA, keratoacanthoma; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.
original articles
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt015 |
Photosensitivity Follicular rash
Annals of Oncology
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
S Sex Age, No. years
original articles
Annals of Oncology
Table 2. Cutaneous symptoms reported among our 42 patients, classified in the order of decreasing frequency Cutaneous symptoms
N
Prevalence (%)
Start day
Verrucous papilloma Hand–foot skin reaction Hyperkeratosic follicular rash Photosensitivity Hair growth modification Xerosis Cystic lesion Milia SCC Facial erythema Cheilitis Panniculitis Keratoacanthoma (KA) Nipple hyperkeratosis Naevi efflorescence Severe radiodermatitis
33 25 23 22 19 14 14 13 11 7 6 6 6 5 4 2
79 60 55 52 45 33 33 31 26 17 14 14 14 12 10 5
35 (7–100) 61 (8–300) 32 (7–80) 47 (2–166) 61 (20–150) 57 (2–180) 108 (7–253) 48 (21–83) 111 (50–515) 62 (10–140) 32 (7–41) 78 (9–240) 77 (27–172) 76 (30–120) 81 (52–130) 34 (13–55)
exhibited real alopecia (five grade 1 and two grade 2). It was usually associated with slower body hair growth. These changes in hair growth did not lead to a dose reduction in any patient. Interestingly, this alopecia was spontaneously reversible within 6 months of treatment with thinner hair growth despite continued treatment (supplementary Figure S4, available at Annals of Oncology online). Grade 1 xerosis was not uncommon as it affected 14 patients (33%), with a mean time to onset of 57 days (2–180). The xerosis was sometimes associated with mild pruritus. It was easily improved with the use of emollient creams. Interestingly, one patient diagnosed as having atopic dermatitis for years before vemurafenib treatment, experienced greatly improved eczema symptoms within the first week until the fifth month of treatment. Moderate erythema of the face was reported in seven patients (17%) with a mean time to onset of 62 days (10–140 days), and was associated with photosensitivity in six of those seven patients. The facial drug reaction appeared as a homogeneous, slightly erythematous facial eruption associated with superficial desquamation. Lesions usually involved the mediofacial area and spared the periorbital area, as previously described with sorafenib [5]. Six patients (14%) developed panniculitis of the lower extremities with a mean time to onset of 78 days (9–240). Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and Weber–Christian disease were ruled out due to normal alpha-1 antitrypsin and pancreatic enzyme levels. Two patients developed a relatively severe radiodermatitis, with severe erythema associated with vesicular or bullous lesions restricted to the irradiated area. Those eruptions resolved within a week with daily use of topical steroids (supplementary Figure S5, available at Annals of Oncology online). Within 3 weeks of treatment, one patient also had a rash reminiscent of Darier’s disease, with typical clinical and pathological characteristics of this condition [8]: he presented with a flare-up of greasy, scaly papules on the back, associated with gingival lesions, and the skin biopsy specimens revealed typical abnormal intra-keratinocyte adhesion typical of Darier’s disease.
Figure 1. (A) A typical verrucous papilloma observed on the trunk of a patient 3 treated with vemurafenib for 42 days. Note the associated follicular hyperkeratosis of the surrounding skin. (B and C) Histological section of a verrucous papilloma (hematoxylin–eosin, original magnification B × 2.5 and C × 20). Note the perinuclear clear spaces in the superficial layers of the epidermis visible at high magnification, mimicking HPV-altered koilocytes. 341 × 136 mm (96 × 96 DPI).
| Boussemart et al.
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
five of them. This grade 1 cheilitis emerged after a mean time to onset of 32 days (7–41). It did not lead to a dose reduction in any patient, and usually resolved spontaneously within a week or two. Twenty-three of the 42 patients (55%) also developed an skin rash consisting in grade 1 or 2 erythematous, hyperkeratotic follicular papules, arising after a mean time to onset of 32 days (7–80), predominantly on the back of the arms and on the front of the thighs (supplementary Figure S2, available at Annals of Oncology online). When carried out on these lesions, skin biopsies revealed pilar dystrophy or folliculitis. This hyperkeratotic perifollicular rash was associated with grade 1 bilateral yellowish nipple hyperkeratosis in five patients (supplementary Figure S3, available at Annals of Oncology online). Altered hair growth was observed in 19 patients (45%). At a mean interval of 2 months (20–150 days), 12 patients noted slower and thinner growth of scalp hair, while 7 other patients
Annals of Oncology
original articles
Figure 4. Photosensitivity after 40 days of treatment with vemurafenib ( patient 9) 255 × 153 mm (96 × 96 DPI).
Figure 3. Bilateral hyperkeratosis of the soles in patient 2 after 2 months of vemurafenib. 114 × 151 mm (96 × 96 DPI).
discussion This is the first and largest prospective study of skin sideeffects occurring during vemurafenib therapy. The main finding resulting from this study is that, in a prospective setting, with patients being examined by a dermatologist, all
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
patients developed at least one cutaneous side-effect. This signifies that the reports of cutaneous side-effects documented by oncologists frequently underestimate the true frequency of these adverse events. Thirty-two patients (76%) developed a rash, either secondary to photosensitivity, or a perifollicular hyperkeratotic rash. Compared with that observed with cetuximab (a monoclonal antibody against EGFR), this perifollicular eruption was more hyperkeratotic than acneiform, and predominantly localized on the limbs. Exacerbation of hyperkeratosis was also clearly visible on the hands, feet or nipples in 27 patients (64%). This keratinocyte proliferation, which can also be involved in the formation of papillomas, KA and SCC, could be attributed to the ability of vemurafenib to paradoxically activate the Mitogen-Activated Protein (MAP) Kinase (MAPK) pathway in cells devoid of a BRAF mutation, as previously demonstrated in vitro [9] and in
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt015 |
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
Figure 2. Strong P16 immunostaining of a microinvasive SCC resected 109 days after the start of vemurafenib therapy ( patient 9). 162 × 114 mm (96 × 96 DPI).
original articles
| Boussemart et al.
should be alerted to the likelihood of these skin adverse events and should receive advice regarding effective photoprotection. As Dummer et al. recently demonstrated, this effect is mediated by ultraviolet A radiation (UVA) part of the solar UV spectrum [18] and should be explained to each patient, recommending the use of broadband UV-sunscreen including UVA rays as well as UV-dense clothing regardless of daylight and season, as UVA penetrates glass. Most the SCC we diagnosed were resected at a microinvasive stage, thus rendering the risk of metastasis minimal. It is nevertheless critical to carefully and completely examine the skin of patients under vemurafenib at each consultation, every month at least, and to ask the patient to promptly report any new skin lesion in order to avoid the development of more invasive SCC. Because of our hypothesis that papillomaviruses might act as cofactors in the occurrence of some skin and genital tumors in this context, we recommend an oral and genital examination as well as a pap smear test before initiating anti-BRAF therapy. We do not know whether this paradoxical proliferative effect is limited to skin cells or whether it would affect other cells in the body. That is why a stringent follow-up is required when using these drugs, particularly if they are given to patients with a long-life expectancy, in an adjuvant setting. Additional BRAF inhibitors are being developed, and a phase III trial evaluating dabrafenib was recently presented, with a similar efficacy in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and a very close spectrum of skin adverse events, although the latter drug seems to be devoid of photosensitivity effects [19]. As vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors are being increasingly prescribed, it is important to clearly signal their numerous adverse skin reactions, their nature, how they evolve but also how to prevent and treat them. Thus, the skin adverse reactions reported and detailed here are likely to represent a class effect rather than molecule-specific manifestations. Hopefully, in the near future, the proliferative cutaneous side-effects of BRAF inhibitors might at least be partially annihilated by combining BRAF-specific targeted therapy with anti-MEK drugs, which block the MAPK pathway downstream of BRAF. Indeed, the preliminary clinical studies have suggested that anti-MEK-targeted therapy does not induce any proliferative skin symptoms such as SCC and KA seen under anti-RAF drugs [20, 21]. Thus, the anti-BRAF and anti-MEK combination could not only increase the treatment efficacy but also prevent the emergence of secondary tumors observed under anti-BRAF treatment.
acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the patients for enabling them to present these cases to a scientific audience in the form of an article. The authors thank Lorna Saint Ange for editing.
disclosure CR is a consultant for Roche, GSK, BMS, Novartis. The other authors have declared no conflicts of interest and there were no funds for this study.
Volume 24 | No. 6 | June 2013
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
vivo [10]. The skin tumors observed in our study occurred at a similar frequency to that described in the large pivotal phase III study BRIM-3 with respect to SCC and KA [3] although it was found to be much less frequent in a large series of patients receiving vemurafenib in the context of an extended access program (<5%) [11]. However, it can be suspected that dermatology follow-up is less strict in the latter study and that the real incidence of these skin proliferations might have been underestimated. In 2008, our team described similar but less frequent SCC, cysts, milia, and palmo-plantar hyperkeratosis among patients undergoing treatment with sorafenib, a panRAF inhibitor [2]. The cellular proliferation of wild-type cells in the skin could also explain the eruptive nevi phenomenon observed in our study (10% of our patients) and under sorafenib therapy through a similar pathway [12]. As it has also been reported by others, one of our patients developed a second melanoma under vemurafenib [13, 14]. The possibility of malignant melanocytic proliferation under vemurafenib could also be explained by paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway in wt-BRAF melanocytes. Indeed, any patient undergoing vemurafenib treatment may develop BRAF wild-type (wt) nevi that could paradoxically degenerate under this targeted therapy. Until now, there was no clear demonstration that melanoma occurring under vemurafenib therapy could be due to the transformation of a RAS mutated pigmented naevus, but it is also possible that somatic events distinct from a RAS mutation could be involved. This risk should be particularly acknowledged, as vemurafenib is currently being evaluated as an adjuvant therapy. Additional somatic events, namely oncogene mutations or papillomavirus infection, might be cofactors of paradoxical cell proliferation facilitated by BRAF inhibitors in the context of wt-BRAF. Indeed, we and others demonstrated a high frequency of ras, TGF-β-receptor or p53 oncogenic mutation in skin tumors among patients treated with BRAF inhibitors [11, 12, 15]. BRAF-specific inhibitors like vemurafenib and dabrafenib induce verrucous papillomas more frequently than sorafenib. The presence of koilocytes and p16-positive keratinocytes in some of the lesions presented by our patients suggests a potential role for HPVs in at least a subset of these tumors. This is highlighted by the occurrence in one of our patients of an invasive SCC of the vulva, 12 weeks after vemurafenib initiation. We are presently carrying out further investigations to evaluate the causative role of these viruses in the emergence of epithelial tumors. Although it is difficult to draw conclusions based on a series of 42 patients, patients who experienced the most severe skin toxicity did not seem to have enjoyed longer survival as reported with EGFR inhibitors [16, 17]. Fortunately, none of these skin symptoms led to the interruption of therapy as long as the metastatic melanoma continued to respond. Most of the cutaneous symptoms appearing under vemurafenib were improved with symptomatic treatment. Proper identification and treatment of vemurafenib-induced skin toxicity help to improve the quality of life in patients with cancer, thereby promoting compliance with antineoplastic treatment and consequently prolonging survival. Prevention should consist of clearly informing the patients about the side effects before initiating therapy. The patients
Annals of Oncology
original articles
Annals of Oncology
references
Annals of Oncology 24: 1697–1703, 2013 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt027 Published online 24 February 2013
Experience in daily practice with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma: an early increase in lymphocyte and eosinophil counts is associated with improved survival J. Delyon1*, C. Mateus1, D. Lefeuvre2, E. Lanoy2, L. Zitvogel3,4,5, N. Chaput4, S. Roy1, A. M. M. Eggermont6, E. Routier1 & C. Robert1,7 1 Dermatology Unit; 2Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology; 3INSERM U1015; 4Center of clinical investigations CICBT 507, Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif; 5Faculty of Medicine, Université Paris Sud/Paris 11, Le Kremlin Bicêtre; 6Oncology Unit; 7INSERM U981, Institut de Cancérologie Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
Received 5 October 2012; revised 4 January 2013; accepted 7 January 2013
Background: Ipilimumab is a recently approved immunotherapy that has demonstrated an improvement in the overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic melanoma. We report a single-institution experience in patients treated in a compassionate-use program. Patients and methods: In this prospective study, patients were treated between June 2010 and September 2011. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, at least one previous line of chemotherapy, and survival 12 weeks after the first perfusion. Four courses of ipilimumab were administered at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks.
*Correspondence to: Dr J. Delyon, Dermatology Unit, Gustave Roussy Institute-114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. Tel: +33-1-42-11-42-10; Fax: +33-1-42-1150-02; E-mail: [email protected]
© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].
Downloaded from http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on February 20, 2015
1. Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 2002; 417(6892): 949–954. 2. Arnault JP, Wechsler J, Escudier B et al. Keratoacanthomas and squamous cell carcinomas in patients receiving sorafenib. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(23): e59–e61. 3. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(26): 2507–2516. 4. Hong S, Hong S, Han SB. Overcoming metastatic melanoma with BRAF inhibitors. Arch Pharm Res 2011; 34(5): 699–701. 5. Kong HH, Sibaud V, Chanco Turner ML et al. Sorafenib-induced eruptive melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144(6): 820–822. 6. Tsoumpou I, Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M et al. p16(INK4a) immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2009; 35(3): 210–220. 7. Autier J, Escudier B, Wechsler J et al. Prospective study of the cutaneous adverse effects of sorafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144(7): 886–892. 8. Szigeti R, Kellermayer R. Autosomal-dominant calcium ATPase disorders. J Invest Dermatol 2006; 126(11): 2370–2376. 9. Hatzivassiliou G, Song K, Yen I et al. RAF inhibitors prime wild-type RAF to activate the MAPK pathway and enhance growth. Nature 2010; 464(7287): 431–435. 10. Su F, Viros A, Milagre C et al. RAS mutations in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(3): 207–215. 11. Blank C, Del Vecchio M, Ascierto PA et al. Personal communication, ESMO 2012.
12. Arnault JP, Mateus C, Escudier B et al. Skin tumors induced by sorafenib; paradoxic RAS–RAF pathway activation and oncogenic mutations of HRAS, TP53, and TGFBR1. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(1): 263–272. 13. Zimmer L, Hillen U, Livingstone E et al. Atypical melanocytic proliferations and new primary melanomas in patients with advanced melanoma undergoing selective BRAF inhibition. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(19): 2375–2383. 14. Dalle S, Poulalhon N, Thomas L. Vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365(15): 1448–1449. 15. Oberholzer PA, Kee D, Dziunycz P et al. RAS mutations are associated with the development of cutaneous squamous cell tumors in patients treated with RAF inhibitors. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(3): 316–321. 16. Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ, Sr et al. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1201–1208. 17. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 337–345. 18. Dummer R, Rinderknecht J, Goldinger SM. Ultraviolet A and photosensitivity during vemurafenib therapy. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(5): 480–481. 19. Hauschild A, Grob JJ, Demidov LV et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 380(9839): 358–365. 20. Flaherty KT, Robert C, Hersey P et al. Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(2): 107–114. 21. Falchook GS, Lewis KD, Infante JR et al. Activity of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced melanoma: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13(8): 782–789.